The Law of Conspiracy in Its Relation to Labor Organizations |
Other editions - View all
The Law of Conspiracy in Its Relation to Labor Organizations (Classic Reprint) Frank M. Simonton No preview available - 2018 |
The Law of Conspiracy in Its Relation to Labor Organizations (Classic Reprint) Frank M. Simonton No preview available - 2015 |
Common terms and phrases
action acts of lawlessness bination boycott branch factories Campa Cigarmakers cities of Tampa Citizens clear Havana cigars closed shop coal the vessel Coal Wheelers Committee common design common law Connecticut constitution contract conviction Cotton Men's Council crime criminal and indictable Cuba deemed guilty defendants delivering the opinion discharge Easterling employers employes employment engaged existed factories in Tampa facturers Federal statute Federation of Labor firm or corporation Florida illegal industry in Tampa injury International Union Jetton-Dekle Lumber Company Joint Advisory Board Jose Justice Cockrell la Campa labor union large number Law of Conspiracy Lawlor leaders Leathem lockout Loewe longshoremen manu misdemeanor Munce person or persons persons from procuring plaintiff punished purpose of preventing refuse to coal seriatim statute law steamship Supreme Court Tampa and West tion trouble in Tampa truck system undoubtedly Union of America unlawful Valle Company violence West Tampa Whereas workers in Tampa workmen
Popular passages
Page 12 - Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor...
Page 12 - Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act may sue therefor in any Circuit Court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Sec. 8. That the word "person
Page 12 - Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed...
Page 16 - ... extremely onerous and distasteful to such owners, and to carry out such scheme, effort, and purpose by restraining and destroying the interstate trade and commerce of such manufacturers, by means of intimidation of and threats made to such manufacturers and their customers in the several states, of boycotting them, their product, and their customers, using therefor all the powerful means at their command as aforesaid, until such time as. from the damage and loss of business resulting therefrom,...
Page 17 - Boycotts, though unaccompanied by violence or intimidation, have been pronounced unlawful in every state of the United States where the question has arisen, unless it be in Minnesota; and they are held to be unlawful in England.
Page 15 - At the risk of tediousness, we repeat that the complaint averred that plaintiffs were manufacturers of hats in Danbury, Connecticut, having a factory there, and were then and there engaged in an interstate trade in some twenty States other than the State of Connecticut; that they were practically dependent upon such interstate trade to consume the product of their factory, only a small percentage of their entire output being consumed in the State of Connecticut; that at the time the alleged combination...
Page 13 - The evidence in proof of a conspiracy will, generally, from the nature of the case, be circumstantial. Though the common design is the essence of the charge, it is not necessary to prove that the defendants came together and actually agreed in terms to have that design, and to pursue it by common means.
Page 16 - States where the wholesale dealers in hats and their customers resided and did business; that defendants were "engaged in a combined scheme and effort to force all manufacturers of fur hats in the United States, including the plaintiffs, against their will and their previous policy of carrying on their business, to organize their workmen in the departments of making and finishing, in each of their factories, into an organization, to be part and parcel of the said combination known as the United Hatters...
Page 10 - The general rule of the common law is that it is a criminal and indictable offense for two or more to confederate and combine together, by concerted means, to do that which is unlawful or criminal, to the injury of the public, or portions or classes of the community, or even to the rights of an individual.
Page 15 - ... property and business. At the risk of tediousness, we repeat that the complaint averred that plaintiffs were manufacturers of hats in Danbury, Connecticut, having a factory there, and were then and there engaged in an interstate trade in some twenty States other than the State of Connecticut; that they were practically dependent upon such interstate trade to consume the product of their factory, only a small percentage of their entire output being consumed in the State of Connecticut; that at...