o1.D DOMINION STEAM—SHIP co. v. M’1~:m1NA. 49 '
Motion to Discharge from Arrest.
Ctarémé A. Seward, forplaintiffs. ·
Lewis E Post and Samuel Ashton, for defendants.
Bnowiv, J. This action was brought to recover $20,000 damages al-
leged tohave been sustained by the plaintiff through the unlawful action
of the defendants in the recent strike of the longshore-men, and in their
attempt to·boycott the plaintiff in its business as a common carrier. The
defendants are alleged to constitute, or to style themselves, an "Executive
Board ofthe Ocean Association of the Longshcre-men’s Union." Atthe
time of the commencement of the action they were arrested and held to
bail under orders of arrest issued in conformity with the state practice.
Thedefendants now move,. upon the plaintiff ’s papers only, to vacate the
order of arrest, on the ground that the material facts chargedare alleged
oninformation and belief only, without a sutlicient statement ofthe
sources ofiinformation; that the facts stated do not make outa prima
fam ease; that it appears that the defendants were acting within their
legal rights; and that the plaintiffs loss, if any, is damnum absque injarm;
and that, at -best, the plaintiH"s case is so doubtful that the order of ar-
rest should not be sustained. s
Ihave carefully considered the elaborate arguments of counsel, and
examined thenumerous authorities referredto. For lack of time, I can
onlystate my conclusions: ·
1 .- "Allthe material averments are either stated positively, or the source
of information is sufliciently indicated. V T » » ‘
2. The facts stated in the complaint and affidavit constitute ia legal .
cause of action against all -the defendants, for the actual damages suffered,
for the following reasons:
(a) The plaintiff was engaged in the legal calling of a common carrier,
owning vessels, lighters, and other craft used in its business, in the em-
ployment of which numerous workmen were necessary, who, as the com-
plaint avers, were employed "upon terms as to wages which were just
and satisfactory." t
(b) The defendants. not being in plaintiffs employ, and without any
legal justification, so far as appears,—a mere dispute about wages, the
merits of which are not stated, not being any legal justii·1cation,—pro—
cured plaintifl’s workmen in this city and in southern ports to quit work
in a· body, for the purpose of iniiicting injury and damage upon the
plaintiff -until it should accede to the defendants demands, and pay
\ southern negroes the same wages as New York longshore-men, which the'
plaintiif was under no obligation-to grant; and such procurement of
workmen Zto quit work- being designed to inflict injury on the plaintiff,
and not being justified, constituted in law a malicious andiillegal inter-
. ference with the plaintiffs business, which is actionable.
(c) After the plaintifi"s workmen, through the defendants} procure-
ment, had quit work, the defendants, ior the further unlawful purpose
of compelling the plaintiff to pay such a rate of wages as they might
demand, declared a boycott of the plaintiffs business, and attempted to
v.3OF.no.1—-4