Lindley Daniel Clark.

The law of the employment of labor online

. (page 26 of 32)
Online LibraryLindley Daniel ClarkThe law of the employment of labor → online text (page 26 of 32)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


which a single individual might have. Under such circum-
stances they become what have been called 'verbal acts,' and
as much subject to injunction as the use of any other force
whereby property is unlawfully damaged." ^ It has been held,
however, that a finding containing "no allegations that the
mere notification of customers that plaintiffs are 'unfair' has
any special significance, that it portends injury, or was intended
as a threat or intimidation," would not sustain an injunction
forbidding the notification of customers that the plaintiffs were
unfair ; ^ though it seems hardly too much to say at the present
time that the word has acquired a technical signification of
which the courts might take cognizance, especially where the
use of the word is one of a series of acts of which the others are
enjoinablc* Where an injunction has been granted restraining

• Coeur d'Alene Co. v. Miners' Union, supra; Beck v. Railway Teamsters'
Prot. Union, 118 Mich. 497,77 N.W. 13; Casey v. Typographical Union, 45
Fed. 135.

« Gorapers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 Sup. Ct. 492. See
per contra, Marx & Haas Jean Clothing Co. r. Watson, 168 Mo. 133, 67 S.W.
391 ; Lindsay v. Montana Fed. of Labor, 37 Mont. 264, 96 Pac. 127.

» Gray v. Building Trades Council. 91 Minn. 171, 97 N.W. 663.

* Seattle Brewing Co. v. Hansen, 144 Fed. 1011 ; Loewe t. Cal. State Fed. of
Labor, 139 Fed. 71 ; Huttig Sash



Online LibraryLindley Daniel ClarkThe law of the employment of labor → online text (page 26 of 32)