Commonwealth v. Hunt

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1842 · Labor Law

45 Mass. 111 (1842)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawcriminal conspiracyunionsconspiracylabor combinationsjourneymenindictment specificitylawful purpose

Facts

The indictment alleged that the defendants, journeymen boot-makers, formed a society and agreed that they would not work for any master who, after notice, employed a journeyman who was not a member of their society. A second count further alleged that by means of that agreement they compelled a master, Isaac B. Wait, to discharge Jeremiah Horne. The printed constitution of the society was admitted at trial, but the court stated that any criminal matter not set out in the indictment could not support conviction. The trial judge instructed the jury that the society described in the indictment was an unlawful conspiracy, and the defendants excepted.

Issue

Did an indictment alleging that journeymen agreed not to work for employers who employed nonmembers of their society, without clearly alleging a criminal or unlawful object or criminal or unlawful means, charge an indictable conspiracy under Massachusetts law? Relatedly, can such an indictment be saved by recitals, epithets, or evidence of acts done in pursuance of the agreement?

Rule

A conspiracy at common law is a combination of two or more persons, by concerted action, to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose not in itself criminal or unlawful by criminal or unlawful means. Because the unlawful agreement is the gist of the offense, the indictment itself must fully and clearly state the unlawful purpose or the unlawful means; recitals, conclusory labels, and averments of acts done in execution cannot cure a deficient statement of the conspiracy.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Worcester, a group of freelance tile setters formed the Granite Row Craftsmen Circle. None was under any employment contract. They agreed that none of them would accept work from any contractor who, after notice, continued to hire tile setters who were not members of the Circle.

If prosecutors indict the tile setters for criminal conspiracy based only on that agreement, what is the strongest argument for dismissal?

Explanation. A conspiracy requires a combination to accomplish an unlawful purpose, or a lawful purpose by unlawful means. Where workers are free from contract and merely agree among themselves not to work for certain employers, the agreement as pleaded shows only an exercise of their own right to choose with whom they will work. Without a clearly pleaded unlawful object or unlawful means, no indictable conspiracy is stated.