Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/358

338 338 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. The relation of party to a lawful contract seems to be the basis of the legality of certain acts. Thus where no action was held to lie for procuring a discharge from employment, by threatening the employer that the: defendant would terminate a contract, that by its terms he had the right to terminate at any time.^ So where an action by a member of a combination among fire insurance com- panies and agents to fix rates, was held not maintainable as for a conspiracy to destroy the plaintiffs business as an insurance agent, merely because of the combined action of the defendants to enforce the rules and penalties against him, as by imposing fines and re- voking agencies.^ But the most conspicuous relations are two that have within recent years been rapidly brought to the front by modern trade conditions, namely, those of trade competitor and of employee. And, conspicuous among the many weapons used by trade com- petitors and by employees, stand the act of inducing a refusal to deal and the kindred act of inducing a breach of contract. It seems long ago to have been recognized, that the relation of trade competitor might furnish a justification for all acts the nat- ural outgrowths or incidents of such relation. Thus, in a decision made in 1410,^ and frequently referred to in Allen v. Flood, where no actionable wrong was held to have been committed by a school- master in setting up a school to the damage of an ancient school, whereby the scholars were allured from the ancient school to come to his. Another instance of the recognition of such relation is found in Bowen v. Matheson.* Nevertheless, until comparatively recently, this relation seems to have been largely ignored. This is strikingly manifest from a comparison of Lumley v. Gye^ with Mogul Steam- ship Co. V. McGregor.^ In Lumley v. Gye what should have been a fundamental consideration was in our view completely ignored. There, after elaborate discussion, was interjected into our jurispru- dence the doctrine of liability for inducing a breach of contract (in this case, to perform at a theatre). But, assuming that under any conditions such a liability exists, the court should have gone farther and considered such questions as these : In what relation stood the party doing the injury complained of? Was it that of employee, trade competitor, or the like? Was such relation a law- 1 Raycroft v. Tayntor, 68 Vt. 219 (1896). 2 Beechley v. Mulville, 102 Iowa, 602 {1897). 8 II Henry IV., Fol. 47, PI. 21. * 14 Allen (Mass.), 499 (1867). 6 2 El. & Bl. 216 (1853). • [1892] App. Cas. 25.