[577]. Statement abridged. Arguments omitted; also part of opinions.
[578]. As to the distinction between intent and motive, see Smith, Crucial Issues in Labor Litigation, 20 Harvard Law Rev. 253, 256–259.
[579]. Compare Tunstall v. Sterns Coal Co., (C. C. A.) 192 Fed. 808. Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act, 6 Edward 7, Chap. 47, enacted Dec. 21, 1906, is as follows:—
“Sect. 3. An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only that it induces some other person to break a contract of employment or that it is an interference with the trade, business, or employment of some other person, or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labor as he wills.”
See Smith, Crucial Issues in Labor Litigation, 20 Harvard Law Rev. 253, 345, 429.
[580]. Only the opinion of Bowen, L. J., is given. Fry, L. J., concurred, but Lord Esher, M. R., dissented. The decision was afterwards affirmed in the House of Lords, [1892] A. C. 25.
[581]. Payne v. Railroad Co., 13 Lea, 507 (Freeman and Turney, JJ., dissenting); South Royalton Bank v. Suffolk Bank, 27 Vt. 505; Delz v. Winfree, 80 Tex. 400, 405 (semble) Accord. See Lough v. Outerbridge, 143 N. Y. 271.
[582]. Statement rewritten.
[583]. See Boggs v. Duncan Furniture Co., 163 Ia. 106; Rogers, Predatory Price Cutting as Unfair Trade, 27 Harvard Law Rev. 139.
[584]. The arguments are omitted.