« 이전계속 »
Turner v. Scott, 51 Penn, St. 126; Daniel v. Hill, 52 in which the testator says, I request that in the Ala. 430; McBride v. McBride, 26 Gratt. 480; and event of my death whilst serving in this horrid observed: "In the last mentioned case Judge climate, or any accident happening to me,' etc., Staples concisely states the law thus, "All the was held not to be conditional. If the wills we authorities hold, indeed it is very clear, it is not have referred to were not conditional ones, certainly necessary to the validity of a will, that it should we ought not to hold this one to be so. The whole have a testamentary form, or that the decedent justification for holding any paper, not made as a should know he had performed a testamentary act, will, to be the will of the maker, is the furtherance or that he should intend to perform such act. A of the testator's wishes. To hold this paper a will, deed poll, or an indenture, a bond, a marriage settle- and yet conditional, would certainly not be in ment, a letter, a promissory note, and the like have accordance with his purpose.” been held valid as a will.'
This view is sustained by adjudged cases, which in some instances, in expression, are singularly analogous. In COMMON WORDS AND PHRASES. Goods of Dobson, L. R., 1 P. & D. 88, the will reads thus: 'In case any fatal accident happening to
CORRESPONDENT sends us a copy of an me, being about to travel by railway, I hereby leave,' opinion recently delivered by Judge Hoyt, of etc. This was held not to be contingent upon the the District Court of Washington Territory, in the event of the testator's death on the journey he was case of the United States v. Northern Pacific Railroad about to take when the will was executed. In Goods Co., construing the word “adjacent ” in the comof Martin, id. 380, the testator says, "Being physi- pany's charter, which grants the privilege of cutting cally weak in health, have obtained permission to timber from “ adjacent ” public lands for use in the cease from all duty for a few days, and I wish, construction of the word, and holding that it has a during such time, to be removed from the brig broader meaning than “ adjoining,” and is synony'Appellina'to the floating hospital ship · Berwick mous with “neighboring.” The court says: “ConWalls,' in order to recruit my health; and in the gress, in enacting section 2 of defendant's charter, event of my death occurring during such time, I do saw fit to use the word 'adjacent,' and in determinhereby will,' etc. It was in proof that he recovered ing the intent of this section we must investigate from the illness and afterward frequently expressed the meaning of the word 'adjacent,' as there used. the desire that all his available property should go Sometimes it has a meaning given it which is to a certain Orphan Asylum. Sir J. P. Wilde held synonymous with the word 'adjoining,' but it is as the will not to be contingent or conditional, and often applied in a more extended sense, as in the awarded it probate. In French v. French, 14 W. Va 'vicinity' or the neighborhood' of, while adjoin459, the will was in these words: *Let all men ing and contiguous' are never used in such know hereby, if I get drowned this morning, March enlarged sense. Congress then having selected 7, 1882, that I bequeath all my property, personal from several synonymous words the one having; and real, to my beloved wife, Florence. Witness as applied to the subject in the section in my hand and seal.' Judges Haymond, Johnson which it is used, the broadest meaning and and More concurred in holding this will not to be most extended signification of the whole, must conditional upon his being drowned that day. The
be held to have intended the broadest rather than paper was given to his wife when he started. He the more restricted signification to be given to it in returned safely and died afterward, leaving that the interpretation of said section, and therefore to paper still in his wife's possession, which was, by hold that this section restricted the defendant to the decision of a majority of the Appellate Court, lands adjoining or contiguous to the line of the sustained as a valid unconditional will. Without road, would be contrary to all rules of interpretation, committing ourselves to full approval of these while if we apply the usual rules we must hold that several decisions under their respective circum- its rights are extended by this section beyond lands stances and language employed, we refer to them adjoining or contiguous to its line of road to lands as vastly stronger cases for holding the will contin- anywhere in the vicinity or neighborhood of its said gent than this one, and where they were held not line of road. Was the 'land in question in the contingent. In the case under consideration it neighborhood of defendant's line of road, within would seem as if allusion was made to the projected the meaning of section two? The design of this trip and the attendant contingencies which might question was to allow the company to take timber occur, only as the inducement for his making the from public lands to build its road, and when we paper, which evidently embodied what he wanted, once concede that under this section the defendant in any event, to be done with his property. It is is authorized to go beyond adjoining lands, as the almost like the case of Tarder v. Tarver, 9 Pet. 174,
use of the word 'adjacent' compels us to do, it where the testator prefaces his disposition by saying, must follow that the use of the more enlarged word . Being about to take a long journey, and knowing
was for the benefit of the Northern Pacific Railroad the uncertainty of life, he deemed it advisable to Company, and it must be so construed by the make a will,' which will was held not to be contin- court as to effect the object of its enactment. And gent. In Goods of Thorne, 4 Swab. & Tris., a will, we are of opinion that timber land nearest to the line of the road must be held to be neighboring for that phrase implies soundness in wind timber land, even although there may intervene and eyes. “Whistling is a noise made in respiration large tracts of land not timbered. If this be so, by a horse whilst trotting or cantering, and though then under the facts of these cases, as above stated, at first it does not indicate any defect in pace or the lands from which the timber in question was endurance, yet it is apt to increase, and indicate cut was in the neighborhood of the line of the road such defects.” where it was used, and therefore ' adjacent'thereto, SEAMAN. An engineer of a tug-boat on the within the meaning of section two of the Delaware river is a “seaman.” Holt v. Cummings, charter of the defendant Northern Pacific Rail- Pennsylvania Supreme Court, October 29, 1883. The road Company. Besides, under the facts proven in court said: “Common sailors only were originally these cases, the lands in question would probably termed seamen, but the rights of seamen, under the come within a more restricted use of the word rulings of American courts, from time to time have 6 adjacent,' for the line of defendant's road runs for been extended to the mate, surgeons, stewards, several hundred miles through a country almost engineers, cooks, clerks, carpenters, firemen, deckentirely destitute of timber, and the belt upon which hands, porters, and chamber-maids; all these classes this timber in question was cut, was the first timber of employees have been allowed to sue, in the land near said road reached by it in the course of admiralty, as mariners, or as persons, rendering its construction; therefore though this timber be maritime services, under a maritime contract: 1 more than one hundred miles from the line of Peters Adm. 246; 2 id. 268; Wilson v. The Ohio, 1 defendaut's road, we are of the opinion that it must Gilpin, 514; 1 Conkl. Admir. 107; 2 Pars. Marit. under the circumstances be held to be adjacent Law, 582; The Sultana, 1 Brown, 13; Steam Prothereto,' within the meaning of section two of peller M. M. Caleb, 9 Ben. 159; The Hudson, 8 Fed. defendant's charter.” Our correspondent points Rep. 167; North America, 5 Ben. 486; Allen v. out that this is apparently opposed to Continental Hallett, Abb. Adm. 576; Gurney v. Crocket, id. 490. Improvement Co. v. Phelps, 47 Mich. 299, where it in the case of Trainor v. The Superior, 1 Gilpin, 514, was held that the owner of property half a mile dis- the general rule is given, that all those who contant from a railway is not an “adjacent occupant or tribute to the preservation of the vessel, or were proprietor.” But this was conceded, and not decided, employed in navigating her, are entitled to the the court simply remarking, "a very proper con- rights of mariners; whilst in the cases of The Ocean cession.” The cases are quite distinguishable, for Spray, 4 Sawyer, 105, and Minna, 11 Fed. Rep. 759, the Michigan case was upon the duty of the rail the rule is extended to all hands employed on the road company to an adjacent owner to fence its vessel, in furtherance of the main object of the track.
enterprise in which she is engaged, except the FAMILY. – In Carmichael v. North-western Mutual master." Benefit Association, Michigan Supreme Court, October VOLUNTARILY. — The effect in this word in a 17, 1883, it was held that where the beneficiary married woman's acknowledgment was thus comresided under the same roof as the insured, who mented on in Scott v. Simons, 70 Ala. 352: “If, was unmarried, and was a member of the same under any circumstances, the acknowledgment of social and domestic circle, and the insured, having the wife that she executed a conveyance voluntarily no relatives remaining to him, regarded the bene- could be deemed the equivalent of an acknowledgficiary much as a daughter, they were of the same ment that she executed it of her own free will and family within the meaning of the Michigan statute accord, and without fear, constraint, or persuasion regarding insurable interest, and there was sufficient of her husband,' it cannot, without a violation of interest to support a life policy. The court said: the legislative intention, be deemed the equivalent “Now this word 'family' contained in the statute under the act referred to. If it should be so taken is an expression of great flexibility. It is applied and construed, the result would be, that a certificate in many ways. It may mean the husband and wife of acknowledgment conforming to the former having no children and living alone together, or it statutes, which were superseded, if made on a privy may mean children or wife, and children, or blood examination of the wife, would be sufficient. The relatives, or any group constituting a distinct do- word voluntarily, under the forms prescribed by mestic or social body. It is often used to denote a those statutes, expressed that husband or wife, in, small select corps attached to an army chief, and the execution of a conveyance, was acting freely. has even been extended to whole sects, as in the The act of April 23, 1873, required that the certificase of the Shakers. We discover nothing in the cate of acknowledgment should express more than statute implying a narrow sense, and we should not was comprehended under the word voluntarily, as be inclined to attribute one where the result would found in the pre-existing statutes, — the word in cause injustice. It seems to us that the circumstances such statute applying alike to husband or wife. constitute a case within the meaning of the Legisla- The act intended the exclusion of the influence of ture."
the husband in producing assent of the wife to the GooD HUNTER. —In a recent English County alienation of the homestead. The protection of Court case of King-King v. Cave, it was held that a the wife from being tortured by fear, constrained by horse that was a "whistler" is not a “good hunter," the domination of a stronger will, or seduced by the flattery, importunity, solicitation, or suasion of the CODIFICATION - REMARKS OF GEORGE H. husband, was the purpose of the act. And it was YEAMAN, BEFORE THE LAW REintended that, on the privy examination, it should
FORM SOCIETY OF THE CITY be made manifest to the officer taking it, that it was
OF NEW YORK. of her own volition, unmoved by the influence of the
Mr. Yeaman, upon taking the chair, after some prehusband, she signed and assented to the alienation.
fatory remarks about law reform and the objects of The certificate of the examination indorsed on the
the society to be organized, said: alienation, it was intended, should manifest clearly, The utility and the practicability of codification not only that the wife was acting from her own have both been established in the history of legislation volition, but should negative the influence of the
aud jurisprudence. As a new proposition, we might
shrink from it as being a dangerous venture, or a task husband in producing the determination."
beyond our power. Such fears are now the mere HEALTH. — A provision in a city charter that the timidity of a well-meaning conservatism. We have health department shall have power to regulate historical examples of its success and of its benefits. dwelling-houses, there being no clause about general Opponents say, that a system of law must be left welfare or general police powers, extends only to
malleable and expansive; that science and civilization health in the sense of freedom from disease, and
advance and change and create new rights, new exi
gencies; that law must be left to adapt itself to new does not justify a requirement that outside walls facts and new circumstances; and that Codes are castshall be of a given thickness. Hubbard v. Paterson, iron systems which cannot do this. 45 N. J. 310. The court said: “The contention is In the light of tbo past, this objection is of no that the power to regulate and control the mode of
weight. And then it assumes what is not true. No
friend or advocate of codification ever coutended that constructing buildings, when given for the preserva
a Code once made, the world will staud still. The tion and promotion of health, justifies such regula-most they claim is to simplify past confusion, clear up tions as respect sanitary conditions and appliances existing doubt, condeuse and crystallize the fruits of alone, and not such as respect the thickness of the past labor, establish a mile-stone, in legislation and walls a matter which, it is insisted, can produce Then shall we always be codifying, or amending exist
jurisprudence and then go forward-when necessary. no effect on the health of the city. If the word
ing Codes? Whenever necessary. But what is the health' is to be understood as expressing merely demand, the necessity, the benefit of codification ? the absence of disease, the contention is effective. Suppose practicing lawyers—to say nothing of the But the word has a broader meaning. According layman, who is legally presumed to know the law, and to the lexicographers, health is .soundness of body;
has a right to kuow it, but as matter of fact does not freedom from disease, sickness or pain.'— Worcester; lawyers had to consult statutes, reports, and text
know it and can't know it as it now exists, suppose 'freedom from pain or sickness; the most perfect books, without indexes. An index though not an
state of animal life.' – Bouvier. It is said to be iucipient Code, is at least a sign post. But we are not · derived from an Anglo-Saxon word, of which we satisfied with these; we have our dagests—digests of yet retain a trace in the word 'hale,' and which may
statutes and digests of decisions. Every digest is only be rendered • whole' or sound. If this meaning telling us what the law is, but very useful in helping
an imperfect Code. They are not always reliable in be attributed to the word in this act, the powers us to find the fountains of the law. Aud what do we given to preserve and promote health would natur- sometimes find, when we have gone to the fountain ally include not only such as would tend to prevent heads? Two streams springing from the same source the origin or development of disease and its dis- and running in opposite directions, or two streams
springing from different sources and trying to run persion by contagion or infection, but also such as
straight across each other, causing conflict and conwould tend to prevent the occurrence of bodily in- fusion-muddy eddies in the law. To say nothing of juries or accidents. The word would then include the vast multiplication of reports, so numerous that the idea of safety as well as health in its ordinary no lawyer is able to own them, and if able, has not and colloquial signification. In the charters of some
roon enough for them either in his house or his
office, nor in both combined, if there were no other municipal corporations such powers are expressly
reason for a Code it would be demanded and justified given for the preservation of the health and safety by the necessity of reconciling where we can, and of citizens. But I am unable to conclude that we where we cannot, of selecting the better reason, and ought to attribute to the word “health,' as used in declaring which is law. this title, the broad meaning above referred to,
There is probably not a State in this Union, as old as which, though a correct, is not its usual meaning.
the youngest man present, that bas not its one, or
two, or three volumes of “Revised Statutes"-every When we find that the Legislature, by these sections, revision of statutory law is a codification. If one can established a department of health and conferred be or ought to be codified, why cannot and why powers for the preservation and promotion of health, ought not the other? If practice or civil procedure, the natural inference is that the department is
if the penal law and penal procedure may be codified,
why may not the body of the civil law? charged with the execution of such sanitary meas
I remember the time as a law student-not as a ures as tend to prevent or diminish disease. Such practitioner, for the Code reached my native State are the ordinary functions of boards of health in just as I was admitted to the bar; but I remember the cities or other municipal corporations in this State. time when a young lawyer (or for that matter, an old There ought to be found in this act language clearly fidence, and go out in confusion and defeat, because
one) would walk into the court-house in pride and conevincing that other functions are intended to be
he had called it assumpsit instead of covenant, or tresconferred on this department in Paterson before we pass instead of “on the case," or called it a bill when should be justified in reaching such a conclusion,” it ought to have been a declaration, and so on without end. A few great lawyers in this State said that was lars, and threatened to discharge said Sanborn if he not right. They were opposed and ridiculed, but they did not comply with his order; by means whereof the fought for the Code of Procedure and had it adopted, plaintiff received but one dollar and sixty-seven cents and now we can try controversies on their merits, to per month, instead of eight dollars; that afterward on the wholesome neglect of the legal metaphysician's on August 1, 1876, said Tillson ordered and directed special pleading.
said Sanborn to leave said dwelling-house and reHow is it that Rome has governed half the civilized fused to allow him to remain therein, and threatened world by her beneficent civil law for a thousand years to discharge him from his employment, unless he and more, after she has ceased to govern the same fair should leave said dwelling-house; and that the said regions with her arms? The Code of Justinian, a Code Tillson threatened to discharge any and all persons of laus, and not merely of procedure, made that possi- from his employment, and expel them from the ble. And yet we are to be told that we cannot do island, who should occupy said premises and become what the Roman lawyers did. For one I do not be- tenants of the plaintiff, by means of which orders, lieve in the degeneracy of the human race; I do not threats, and directions, the said Sanborn was induced believe that learning, industry and capacity for labor to and did leave the premises, and refused to pay for hare diminished.
the use of the same, and to occupy the same, whereby One objector will say: It is all right to have digests the plaintiff has been unable to rent, lease, or sell said -your incipient or imperfect Codes-to have Revised dwelling-house, and has lost all benefit from the Statutes; they can be made with scissors and paste same. (whoever thinks that let him try it), and all right to The second count is in trover for the conversion of simplify procedure, mere practice; but the law, the the plaintiff's dwelling-house. body of the law, that is a different thing; that is so The evidence in support of the plaintiff's claim vast, so ramified, so intricate, so delicate, so important comes entirely from him, and witnesses called by as the standard and safe-guard of rights, don't tamper him. with that. The argument is the other way. Its vast- The defendant is the owner of Hurricane Island, Dess, its importance, its complication, its delicacy, are has extensive quarries there, doing a large business, jast the reasons why the law needs codification and having important contracts with the government, and would be benefited by it. If it cannot be done, that is six hundred men in his employ. our fault, and not the fault of the system of codifica- The plaintiff went into the defendant's employ as a tion. And we are told that the Civil Code, as now stone cutter in 1873, and purchased the house referred proposed, has not been well done. That would prob- to in the declaration, in the fall of 1874, for two hunably be assumed by its opponents; but if it really had dred and fifty dollars, and was discharged in October, not been well done, then so much the greater reason 1875. He testified that he “made no attempt to injure would there be for the existence of this society, though General Tillson, previous to his (my) discharge;" that we may not concede the particular defects so far he “had been taking notes in regard to the managealleged against it. We advocate its adoption while ment of the job,” and was “going to keep the notes in aiding to perfect it.
case the job was ever investigated," that he "furnished
information to the newspapers in regard to the MALICIOUS ACT GIVING NO RIGHT OF AC
management of the government works; ” wrote arti
cles in the Boston Herald and the Rockland Opinion; TION.
that when tbe latter paper was indicted for a libel
growing out of the articles, he was here two weeks in MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT, MAY 29, 1883. procuring witnesses for the publisher; that he said he
considered the defendant a damned scoundrel, that HEYWOOD v. TILLSON.
he so testified, on the trial of the indictment, and that
he '80 considers him now." Ad employer has a right to refuse to employ or to retain in his
The house was built on defendant's land by verbal service any person renting certain specified premises, and the owner of such premises has no cause of action against permission of his clerk. him for the exercise of such right, though such refusal Such is the relation of the parties. was through malice or ill will to such owner.
The plaintiff claims to recover in trover, but he tegtifies that Geveral Tillson told him, “ that he would not interfere with making a disposition of the pro
perty,” “that he has never directly assumed to him A. P. Gould, for plaintiff.
(me) any control over that house," " that he wanted D. N. Mortland, for defendant.
me to dispose of my property there and go off the
island; he said he should not interfere with my disAPPLETON, C. J. This is an action on the case.
posing of it," " that any man that rented my house The plaintiff in his writ alleges that on December 19, should not work for him.” Here is no conversion of 1875, he was seised of a dwelling-house on Hurricane
the property. The plaintiff might live there. He Island of great value, yielding an annual rent of one
might sell or lease his estate. He had full control hundred dollars which he would be receiving, were it
of his property, leaving the defendant at liberty in not for the wrongful act of the defendant, and ought fixing the terms and conditions on which he would to receive from one Charles H. Sanborn and other employ those laborivg for him. Whatever they might tenants; that he leased the dwelling house and premi- do, here is no conversion of the house of the plaintses to said Sanborn for the term of one year, which iff. som said Sanborn was willing to pay; that the defend- The first ground of complaint in the second count in ant was the occupant and owner of said Hurricane the declaration is, that he had leased the said dwellIsland, and engaged in quarrying, cutting and working ing house and promises to the said Charles H. Sanborn granite, and shipping the same to market; that there for the term of one year from the said day hereinwas no opportunity to lease any building, except to before specified (December 29, 1875), for the sum of those in the defendant's employ; yet the defendant eight dollars per month, which sum the said Charles knowing this and to deprive the plaintiff of the rents H. Sanborn was then and there ready and willing to and profits arising therefrom, did on December 29, pay.” “Yet the said defendant, well knowing the 1875, order and direct the said Sanborn to pay him premises, * * * did on the said December 29, A. only twenty dollars a year, instead of ninety-six dol. D. 1875, order and direot the said Charles H. Sanborn
ACTION on the case and also in trover. The opinion
| "The workmen may agree that they will not work for
to pay the plaintiff ouly twenty dollars a year, instead and interested in his prosperity. As between the emof the ninety-six dollars per year, and threatened to ployer and the employee, each may fix the terms and discharge said Sanborn from his employment if he did conditions on which the one will employ and the other not comply with such order; by means whereof the be employed. “It is well settled,” observes Shaw, C. said Sanborn was prevented from payment to the J., in Commonwealth v. Hunt, 4 Met. 133, "every free plaintiff any more than one dollar and sixty-seven man, whether skilled laborer, mechan.c, farmer, or docents, instead of eight dollars per month."
mestic servant, may work or not work, work or refuse The plaintiff's evidence disproves every material to work, with any company or individual at his own allegation as there set forth, and the above is the most option, except so far as he is bound by contract." The tangible ground of complaint to be found in the whole employer has equal and reciprocal rights to fix the declaration.
terms and conditions upon which alone he will conThe house was not leased for the year. It was per tract for employment. He is restricted to no color or sonal property. The plaiutiff was not seised of it. race. The conditions upon which he insists may be Sanborn testifies that the plaintiff rented the house to silly or absurd. If acceded to they are binding on the him “for eight dollars a month, so long as he (I) saw employee. Wbether wise or not, if legal it is no confit to occupy it," that he went into the house in Octo- cern of others. In Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 14, ber, 1875, and left in August, 1876, and that the amount Chapman, C. J., uses this language: “Every man has he “paid Heywood was in the neighborhood of eighty a right to determine what brauch of business he will dollars." The plaintiff nowhere alleges that he did pursue, and to make his contracts with whom he not receive the rent as stipulated from Sanborn. The pleases and on what terms he can.
* * He may only evidence of ordering out is, what is testified to refuse to deal with any men or class of men. And it by Sauborn; that “he said he did not wish to injure is no crime for any number of persons, without an unme (Sanborn), but the man that lived in Heywood's lawful object in view to associate themselves together house could not work for him." But this constitutes and agree that they will not work for or deal with cerno ordering. It was what he had a right to say. It taiv men or classes of men, or work under a certain did not interfere with letting to others.
price or without certain conditions." The employer As the house was rented to Sanborn by the month, has the same right of imposing conditions and limitaas "long as he saw fit to occupy it," the contract was terminable at the option of Sanborn. He could terminate it when and for what reason he saw fit. The an employer, “who should after notice, employ a plaintiff could not complain of its termination, no journeyman, who habitually used it” (liquor), Commatter how unreasonable it might be. He had no monwealth v. Hunt. A laborer would not be liable to contract with Sanborn that he should remain. He a journeyman who lost employment by reason of such might remain or not. In Hutchins v. Hutchins, 7 agreement, and the refusal of the employer any longer Hill, 104, the defendants, after a will was made devis- to hire him. So the master may equally impose as a ing certain real estate to A., conspired to induce the condition, that his servants shall not board at a house testator to revoke it, and effected their object by where liquors are kept for sale, and the seller cannot means of false and fraudulent representations. Held, maintain an action against him for the loss of profits that A. could not maintain an action, as the revoca- on liquors he might have sold his boarders had they tion of the will merely deprived him of an expected remained with him. He may impose as a condition of gratuity, without interfering with any of his rights. employment, that certain associates and associations So here no rights were interfered with. There was no shall be avoided. Good habits are not all tbat is deobligation on the tenant to remain. None on the sirable. An interest in the success of an enterprise is landlord to permit him to remain. All there is, the required. The master may impose as a condition of tenant did not renew his contract. Why he did not is employment, that he shall not associate with one who no concern of the landlord. The tenancy was at will. is inimical to him-who is seeking to injure him— who The exercise of that will was the exercise of a perfect is acting as a spy upon his proceedings, and who is right. The motive which induced that exercise can libelling him in the newspapers. be no ground of complaint, whether it was the chance So the employer, as he may by contract stipulate of bettering his condition, to gratify a whim of his with his men where they shall not board, may equally own or the ill will of another. The landlord cannot determine where and of whom they may rent the complain that a tenant declines to renew his lease. It houses they may occupy, and where they may not. Sanborn violated any contract, he is liable to the The house may be in an unhealthy part of the city, or plaintiff in damages.
a disreputable neighborhood. But whatever the reaBesides an employer has a vital interest in the wel. son, good, bad, or indifferent, no one has a right to fare of his men. He has a right to see that they are complain. not plundered. It was a perfectly proper motive for The owner has no cause of complaint when one says the defendant to interpose to prevent an extortionate he will not occupy his house, vor when another says rent, as that of one hundred dollars a year for a shanty he will refrain from doing an act it it be occupied. costing but two hundred and fifty dollars. His own The defendant was under no obligation-owed no interest and his interest in the success of his em- duty to the plaintiff that he should permit his men to ployees, without the imputation of any thing sinister occupy bis house, any more than to a boarding-house on his part, afford good and sufficient reasons for his keeper that he should permit his men to board with intervention.
him. The idea of a boarding-house keeper suing a The question raised is, whether the defendant is man because he declines or refuses to employ his liable in damages to a landlord for a tenant's leaving, boarders, or the owner of a house, because he will not or for one or many declining to become or not becom-employ his tenants, is utterly at variance with the ing tenants, in consequence of his threats that he right of individuals to make their own contracts. A would employ no one who should become such land- landlord has no right of action against an employer of lord's tenants, or being his tenants should continue to men, because he refuses to employ his tenants or remain such.
boarders. Nor are his rights enlarged because the The defendant was doing a large business, having reason of such refusal is, that they are his tenants or five or six hundred men in bis employ. It was of the boarders. utmost importance to his success that his employees Neither is the employer liable if having the tenants should be of good habits, friendly to his enterprise or boarders of a landlord in his employ he discharges