Walker v. Cronin
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Toet, brought in the superior court. The declaration was as follows: “ First count. And the plaintiffs say that before and at the time of the committing of the several grievances by the defendant, as hereinafter mentioned, they were, and from thence hitherto have been, engaged in the manufacture and sale of boots and shoes in the town of Milford in the county of Worcester, and have heretofore made, and ought and would have continued to make, large profits in their said…
Read the full summary
Toet, brought in the superior court. The declaration was as follows: “ First count. And the plaintiffs say that before and at the time of the committing of the several grievances by the defendant, as hereinafter mentioned, they were, and from thence hitherto have been, engaged in the manufacture and sale of boots and shoes in the town of Milford in the county of Worcester, and have heretofore made, and ought and would have continued to make, large profits in their said business but for the said several grievances committed by the defendant; and they further say that in the prosecution of…
1Opinion of the Court
"W ells, J.
The declaration, in its first count, alleges that the defendant did, “ unlawfully and without justifiable cause, molest, obstruct and hinder the plaintiffs from carrying on ” their business of manufacture and sale of boots and shoes, “ with the unlawful purpose of preventing the plaintiffs from carrying on their said business, and wilfully persuaded and induced a large number of persons who were in the employment of the plaintiffs,” and others “ who were about to enter into ” their employment, “ to leave and abandon the employment of the plaintiffs, without their consent and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Carew v. RutherfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Chatfield v. WilsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Benton v. PrattNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Mahan v. BrownNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- Trustees & Inhabitants of Delhi v. YoumansNew York Supreme Court · 1867
3Cited by225 opinions
- Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1989
- American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. SturgesTexas Supreme Court · 2001
- Camfield v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
220 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.