We concur: Lorigan, J.; Beatty, C. J.; Melvin, J.

Shaw, J. I agree with all that is said by Justice Henshaw in his opinion, except the part relating to the so-called “secondary boycott” and the attempt to draw a distinction between the compulsion of third persons caused by picketing, and the compulsion of third persons produced by a boycott. My views concerning the “secondary boycott” are expressed in my dissenting opinion in Parkinson v. Building Trades Council, (Cal.) 98 Pac. 1040. The means employed for the coercion or intimidation of a third person in a “secondary boycott” are unlawful whenever they are such as are calculated to, and actually do, destroy his free will and cause him to act contrary to his own volition in his own business, to the detriment of the person toward whom the main boycott or strike is directed; in other words, whenever the means used constitute duress, menace, or undue influence. Whether this coercion or compulsion comes from fear of physical violence, as in the case of picketing, or from fear of financial loss, as in the secondary boycott, or from fear of any other infliction, is, in my opinion, immaterial, so long as the fear is sufficiently potent to control the action of those upon whom it is cast. I can see no logical or just reason for the distinction thus sought to be made. There is no such distinction in cases where contracts or wills are declared void, because procured by duress, menace, or undue influence. There should be none where actual injury is produced or threatened through such means acting upon third persons. Nor do I believe any well-considered case authorizes any such distinction. The opinions in the case of National Protective Association v. Cummings, 170 N. Y. 315, are devoted to a discussion of the right to strike and the limitations of that right and not to a discussion of the “secondary boycott.” A close analysis of the cases on the subject will, as I believe, show that this court stands alone on this point.

For these reasons I do not agree to that part of the judgment directing a modification of the injunction. I believe that it should stand in the form as given by the court below.

Angellotti, J., and Sloss, J.

We concur in the judgment. The modification of the judgment is in line with the views announced in the Parkinson case. So far as “picketing” is concerned, while we are not prepared to hold that there may not be acts coming within that term as it is accepted and understood in labor disputes, that are entirely lawful and should not be enjoined, we believe that as to such “picketing” as is described in both findings and judgment in this case, the views expressed in the opinion of the court are correct.[[622]]

INDEX

[1]. Smith v. Newsam, 1 Vent. 256; Tombs v. Painter, 13 East, 1; Lewis v. Hoover, 3 Blackf. 407; Handy v. Johnson, 5 Md. 450; People v. Carlson, 160 Mich. 426; Saunders v. Gilbert, 156 N. C. 463; Leach v. Leach, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 699 Accord.

[2]. The report of the same case in 2 Keble, 545, adds: “The defendant pleaded the plaintiff began first, and the stroke he received, whereby he lost his eye, was on his own assault, and in defense of the defendant.”