Hyperlawhypertext legal database Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co. v. Standard Oil Co. 8 N.Y. St. Rep. 876

← Cases

Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co. v. Standard Oil Co.

8 N.Y. St. Rep. 876 Court N.Y. Decision date 1887-07-01 English

Contents

Majority

p. 876
Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co. (Limited), Resp’t, v. Standard Oil Co. of New York, Impleaded, App’lt.[1]
(Court of Appeals,
Filed July 1, 1887.)

Headnote

Corporations—Conspiracy by, actionable.
An action may be maintained against a corporation to recover damages, for conspiracy.
Appeal from judgment of supreme court, general term, fifth department, affirming judgment and order of Erie special term, affirming appellant’s demurrer to complaint.
The complaint stated that plaintiff, from July, 1881, to July, 1882, carried on the business of refining oil and manufacturing lubricating oils, owning lands ana extensive machinery, etc., employing skilled labor, etc., etc., and doing an extensive business. That the Standard Oil Company, of Cleveland, Ohio, up to that time controlled the business of refining oil. That it organized the Acme Oil Company, and that it bought out'two-thirds of' the Vacuum Oil Company’s stock, and hired its employees, binding them not to compete with the Standard Oil Company. It further alleged that the defendants conspired together with other persons to prevent any other persons or corporations from carrying on this business, and to drive out any one already in, or who. attempted to engage in it. That the Vacuum Oil Company
p. 877
organized the Standard Oil Company of New York for this very purpose, and it carried out such scheme, getting control of and crowding out certain companies, which were enumerated. The complaint further alleged that all the defendants conspired to injure the plaintiff, by various means, stating them, such as by abusive letters, threatening prosecution to those who should buy oil of plaintiff, on the ground of infringement of patent rights, persuading plaintiff’s employees to leave it of to injure it by doing their work negligently, and that plaintiff was injured thereby, etc., etc.
George J. Sicard, for app’lt; Adelbert Moot, for resp’t.

We entertain no doubt that an action against a corporation may be maintained to recover damages caused by conspiracy. Morton v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 34 Hun, 367 ; affirmed 103 NJ. Y., 645; Reed v. Home Sav. Bank, 130 Mass., 443 . Krulivitz v. Eastern R. Co., 140 Mass., 575 , Western News Co. v. Wilmarth, 33 Kan., 510 . If actions can be maintained against corporations for malicious prosecution, libel, assault and battery, and other torts, we can perceive no reason for holding that actions may not be maintained against them for conspiracy It is well settled by the authorities cited that the malice and wicked intent needful to sustain such actions may be imputed to corporations A careful scrutiny of the complaint has convinced us that sufficient facts are alleged to show that this appellant was a party to the conspiracy set forth, and that sufficient facts are therefore alleged in the complaint to show a cause of action against it.

The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with leave to the appellant to withdraw its demurrer and answer the complaint, upon payment, within twenty days, of the plaintiff’s costs subsequent to the interposition of the demurrer.

All concur.