I pass now to consider the effect of the statute 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86.
[The opinion on this point is omitted.]
My Lords, I will detain your Lordships no longer. Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1, is in many respects a very valuable decision, but it may be easily misunderstood and carried too far.
Your Lordships are asked to extend it and to destroy that individual liberty which our laws so anxiously guard. The appellant seeks by means of Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1, and by logical reasoning based upon some passages in the judgments given by the noble Lords who decided it, to drive your Lordships to hold that boycotting by trades unions in one of its most objectionable forms is lawful, and gives no cause of action to its victims although they may be pecuniarily ruined thereby.
My Lords, so to hold would, in my opinion, be contrary to well-settled principles of English law, and would be to do what is not yet authorized by any statute or legal decision.
In my opinion this appeal ought to be dismissed with costs.
Order appealed from affirmed, and appeal dismissed with costs.[[607]]
VEGELAHN v. GUNTNER
Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts, October 26, 1896.
Reported in 167 Massachusetts Reports, 92.
Bill in equity against fourteen individual defendants and two trades unions.[[608]]