FEDERAL Rl1JPOR'l'ER,

63.

ARTHUR et: al.v;OAKES etlil. (Circ,wf Court of Circuit. October 1, 1894.)
I

No. 169.

1.

RAU,ROAD:E:¥PWYES-QUITTINGSIi)kvICE WITHOU1' C,APS)ll-LIAnILITIES.

.

If an el.l1IHoyt! of a railroad company qUits without cause, and in viOlatlon of: an express contract to' serve for a stated time, then his quitting would no1hbe of right, and he ,would be liable for any damages resulting from a, breach of his agreement, l;U}d, perhaps, in some states of case, to criminal pr9!>ecution for loss, of li,fe or limb bypasseI,lgers or others. directly resulting from his abanAoning his post at a time when care and watchfulness was req1,lred upon' his' partin the discharge of a dUty he bad uI,ldenaken to pHl'orm.

2.

SAME-!NVOl,UNTARY SERVITUDE.

It wQuld bean invasion. of, one's,natural liberty to compel him to work. for, or to remain. in the personal service of, another. One who is placed :under' such' restraint is in a condition of involuntary servitude,-a condltlonWhleh the supreme law of the land not exist within ,the United':States, or In any place subject to their jurisdiction.

8.

: The rule1 we think, is ex,cel1'tion that equity 'will not compel the . lLCtual,.alllr,IIlative performalfce by apj mployli of merely personal services, "'any more thlln It WillcoIl}pel anefnnlbyer to retain in his personal service (lile who, no matter for what cause, Is 'not acceptable to him for service of' 'llhe right of employli, engaged to perform persomil ithat Iservice, t<1' ql).it that I'ej3ts upoj) the same basis as the right of h,i8. eplployer to., discharge hiDl fl,'om turijler personal service. If the quitting in or the discharging tQ, tb,e other, is in violation of the contract between parties; the dne ,Injured by the breach has his action for damages; and a court of equity will not, indirectly or negatively, by means. ,!#. an injunction the violation of the contract, perfol'mance ,day to day, or the affirmative acceptance,(jf merely personal services. Relief of that character has always regard'ed as impracticable. " " the simultaneous cessation of work by any considerable t,Qe employlis of a railroad corporation. without previous Ilotice· the pubI!c. will have, an .,njtiriotts effect,and for a time But these revils, great as they are, and although ari'sing in many cases !from the inconsiderate conduct and employers, both equally l,different.tothegeneral lire to be met and remedied by leglsla· tioll and employers, sQ far. as necessary adathe rights of, public as involved in the existence, maintenance, and safe management of public highways. In the absence of legislation to the contrary, the right of one in the service of a quasi public to withdraw therefrom at such time as he sees fit, and the, r;ight, ,of the managers of such a cl)rporation. to 'discharge an employe from . whenever they see fit, must be deeme<lso far absolute that no 'catJrt'of equity will compel hlW, against bis ",1II; ,'to remain in SJlch service or actually to performthllpersonal acts required in such employments, or compel such managers, against their will, to keep a particular In their service.

SAME-Oo:N'l'RACT OF EMPLOYMB:iNT-'aEMEDIES FOR BREACH.

4.'l:$AME.

G.

SaME-EQUITY JURISDICTION-PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.

The fact that employlis of railroads may quit under circumstances that would show bad faith upon their part, or a reckless disregard of their contract or of the convenience and interests of. both employer and the public, does not justify a departure from the general rule that equity will, not compel the actual, affirmative performance of personal services,.. or (which is the same thing) require employlis, against their will, to re-main in the persO'nal service of their employer.

ARTHUR 1'. OAKES.

811

6.

RAILROAD EMPLOYES-QUITTING SERVICE OF RECEIVER.

Tbese employes having taken servke first with the company, and afterwards with the receivers, under a general contract of employment which did not limit the exercise of the right to quit the service, their peaceable co-operation, as the result of friendly argument, persuasion, or conference among themselves, in asserting the right of each and all to refuse further service under a schedule of reduced wages, would not have been illegal or criminal, although they may have so acted in the firm belief and expectation that a simultaneous quitting Without notice would temporarily inconvenience the receivers and the public. If in good faith, and peaceably, they exercise their right of quitting the service, intending thereby only to better their condition by securing such wages as they deem just, but not to injure or interfere with the free action of others, they cannot be legally charged with any loss to the trust property resulting from their cessation of work In consequence of the refusal of the receivers to accede to the terms upon which they were willing to remain in the service. Such a loss, under the circumstances stated, would be incidental to the situation, and could not be attributed to employes exercising their lawful rights in orderly ways, or to the receivers when, in good faith and in fidelit s' to their trust, they declare a reduction of wages, and thereby cause dissatisfaction among employes, and their withdrawal from service. According to the principles of the common law, a conspiracy upon the part of two or more persons, with the intent, by their combined power, to wrong others or to prejudice the rights of the public, is in itself illegal, although nothing be actually done in execution of such conspiracy. This is fundamental in our jurisprudence. So, a combination or conspiracy to procure an employe or body of employl:is to quit service in violation of the contract of service would be unlawful. and in a proper case might be enjoined, if the injury threatened would be irremediable at law.

7.

CONSPIRACY-IVUEX ILLEGAL.

8.

SAllIE.

An intent, upon the part of a single person, to injure the rights of others or of the public, is not in itself a wrong of which the law will take cognizance, unless some injurious act be done in execution of the unlawful intent; but a combination of two or more persons with such an intent, and under circumstances that give them, when so combined, a power to do an they would not possess as individuals acting singly, has always been recognized as in itself wrongful and illegal.
It seems entirely clear, upon authority, that any combination or conOF EMPLOYES.

9.

UNLAWFUJ,

spiracy upon the part of these employes would be illegal which has for its object to cripple the property in the hands of the receivers, and to em· barrass the operation of the railroads under their management, either by disabling or rendering unfit for use engines, cars, or other property in their hands, or by interfering with their possession, or by actually obstructing their control and management of the property, or by using force, intimidation, threats, or other wrongful methods against the receivers or their agents, or against employl:is remaining in their service, or by usIng like methoos to cause employl:is to qUit, or prevent or detel' others from entering the service in place of those leaving it.
10.

SAME.

The act of congress of June 29, 1886, legaliZing the incorporation of national trade unions (24 Stat. 86, c. 567), does not sanction illegal com· binations.
IU,EG.U.

U. STRIKE-WHEN

In the absence ot' evidence, it cannot be held, al'; a matter of law, that a combination among employes, having for its object their orderly withdrawal in large numbers, or in a body, from the service of their em· Ployers, on account simply of a reduction in their wages, is not a "strike," within the meaning of that word as commonly used. Such a withdrawal, although amounting to a strike, is not illegal or criminal.

312

FEDERAL

vol. 63.

12.

l:3AME-!NTERFERENCE BY EQUITY.

Circumstances stated under which a court of equity DlIlY interfere to prevent strikes or fllegal interference with property.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Petition by P. }'i. Arthur and others to modify certain injunctions issued in a consolidated suit brought by the Farmers' Loan & Trust Oompany and others against the Northern Pacific Railroad Oompany and its receivers, Thomas F. Oakes, Henry O. Payne, and Henry O. Rouse. 60 Fed. 803. The injunctions were only modified in part, and the petitioners appeal. Quarles,Spence & Quarles, for appellants. George P. Miller, for appellees. Before HARLAN, Circuit Justice, WOODS, Circuit Judge, and BUNN, District Judge.
HARLAN, Circuit Justice. The questions before us relate to the power of a court of equity, having custody by receivers of the railroad and other 'property of a corporation, to enjoin combinations,conspiracies, or acts upon the part of the receivers' employes and their associates in labor organizations, which, if not restrained, would do irreparable mischief to such property,. and prevent the receivers from discharging the duties imposed by law upon the corporation. The original bill was filed on behalf .of stockholders and creditors of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation created by an act of congress, and had for its general object the administration under the direction of the court of the entire railroad system, lands, and assets of that corporation, and the' enforcement of the respective l'l"ghts, liens, and equities of its preferred and common stockholders, bondholders, and creditors. The railroad company having filed its answer, receivers were appointed, with authority to take immediate possession of its railroads and other property, and to exercise its authority and franchises, conduct its business and occupation as a carrier of passengers and freight, discharge the public dutlesobligatory Upon it, or upon any of the corporations whose lines of road were in its possession, preserve the property in proper condition and repair so as to be safely and ad"'antageously used, protect the title and possession of the same, and employ such: persons and make suchpaYJ;llents and disbursements as were needful. Tbe.receivers were also authorized to manage all other property of the company at their discretion, and in such manner as in their judgment would produce tbe most satisfactory results· consistent with the discbarge of the public duties imposed on them, and to fix the compensation of officers, attorneys, managers, superintendents, agents, and employes in their It was further ordered that an injunction issue against the defendant and all claiming to act by, through, or under it, and against all other persons, to restrain them from with the receivers in taking posseilsion of and managing the property.

ARTHUR 11. OAKES.

313

Subsequently the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, as trustee for the holders of bonds and collateral trust indentures, filed an original bill in the same court against the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, the individual plaintiffs in the first suit, and the receivers. The relief asked was that the plaintiff, as trustee un· der the mortgages named in the bill, be placed in possession of the mortgaged premises, or that receivers of the rights, ,franchises. and property of the railroad company be with authority to operate its railroads and carryon its business under the protection of the court; that the liens created by the several mortgages be ascertained and declared; and that the mortgaged property, in certain contingencies, be sold, and the proceeds applied according to the rights of parties. The railroad company having appeared in that suit, an order was entered appointing the same persons receivers who were appointed in the first suit, and the two suits were consolidated, to proceed together under the title of the Farmers' Loan & Trul!lt Company v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company, etc. . By a writ of injunction dated December 19, 1893, the officers, agents, and employes of the receivers, including engineers, firemen, trainmen, train dispatchers, telegraphers, conductors, switchmen, and all persons, associations, and combinations, voluntary or otherwise, whether in the service of the receivers or not, were enjoined1'rom disabling, or rendering in any wise unfit for oonvenient am! immediate use, any engine, cars, or other property of the receivers; From interfering in any manner with the possession of locomotives, cars, or property of the receivers, or in their custody; From interfering in any manner, by force, threats, or otherwise, with men who desire to continue in the service of the receivers, or with men employed by them to take the place of those who quit; From interfering with or obstructing in any wise the operation of the railroad, or any portion thereof, or the running of enbrines or trains thereon as usual; . From any interference with the telegraph lines of the receivers along the lines of railways operated by them, or the operation thereof; From combining and conspiring to quit, with or without n{)tice, the service of said receivers, with the object and intent of crippling the property in their custody or embarrassing the operation of said railroad, and from so quitting the service of the said receivers, with or without notice, as to cripple the property or prevent or hinder the operation of said railroad; and, generally, From interfering with the officers and agents of the receivers or their employes in any manner, by actual violence or by intimida· tion, threats, or otherwise, in the full and complete possession and management {)f the railroad and of all the property thereunto per· taining, and from interfering with any and all property in the custody of the receivers, whether belonging to them or to shippers or other owners, and from interfering with, intimidating, or otherwise