Bacon v. St. Paul Union Stockyards Company
Facts
Defendant operated a livestock yard with facilities for loading, unloading, caring for, buying, selling, and dealing in livestock. Plaintiff alleged that since August 1, 1918, he had continually worked in and about defendant's yards in buying, selling, and dealing in livestock, and that he was employed by Drover Livestock Commission Company at a salary of $200 per month. Plaintiff further alleged that on July 3, 1923, defendant wrongfully, unlawfully, and willfully excluded him from the stockyards, barred him from carrying on his occupation there, and forbade others from employing him in or about the yards. He alleged that he was able to continue that employment at the same salary but for defendant's conduct and that defendant could impose only reasonable and nondiscriminatory rules and regulations.
Issue
Does a complaint state a cause of action when it alleges that a defendant wrongfully, willfully, and unlawfully excluded the plaintiff from the defendant's premises and prevented others there from employing him, thereby preventing plaintiff from continuing his steady employment?
Rule
Wrongful interference with the contract relations of others causing a breach is a tort. A complaint states a cause of action when it alleges that the plaintiff had steady employment and that the defendant wrongfully, willfully, and unlawfully prevented the plaintiff from continuing in that employment.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
If Lena sues the market operator and alleges those facts, which is the best argument that her complaint survives a demurrer for failure to state a claim?