The Federal Reporter. Volume 116 Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and Circuit and District Courts of the United States. August-October, 1902. Page: 510

                                
61D                    116 FPEDEAI. RERPRTERL
is,Ioa,1 aA  which the state statute declares cannot be evaded by
contract ppered into in violation of the provisions of the statutes,
and it !pips..e held that the clauses of, the contracts which are in-
tended to,free-the company from liability for injuries caused by its
negligence or that of its employes to express messengers, when en-
gaged'in;,their duties upon the trains of the company in Iowa, are
invalid, afl :qf no legal force or effect.
At the request of the defendant. and to secure a full presentation
of the questipa upon the record, the. final ruling thereon will be re-
served until the trial of the case upon the facts, when the record
can be made. upon the offer of the contracts in evidence.
UNITEp' STAtES ex re.,GIARANTY TRUST         . OF NEW YORK v.
HAGGERTY et al.
-  rcult Court, N. D. West Virginia. July. 24, 1902.)
1. INJIuNCTl~ro-GlOUxDe-CofilINATIOrI' ko INDUCE STRTKEs.
The pbter of 'a court of equity may be invoked to restrain and inhibit
r. by injunction a combination which s; formed to induce employes who
are not dissatisfied, with the terms of their employment to strike for
the purpose of nflicting injury and damage upon the employers.
t SaE.
While einplos 'have the right to quit their employment whenever
they desire,' uiless contractual relations exist between them and their
employere-which -should control such rlgh't, the action of third persons,
having nq r interest in the contracts between workmen and their em-
ployers, In, conspiring to confr61 the adli6n of the workmen and to induce
them to strike by means of threats, intimidation, or a resort to any
other modes usually employed in such cases, is an illegal and malicious
interference with the employer's business, which a court of equity may
properly enjoin where it is necessary to prevent irreparable injury.
L SAME-VIOLATIoir-CONTEMI T ,O, COURT.
Defendants, who were alleged to be unlawfully interfering with the
business of a coal company and its employes by attempting to incite the
latter. to strike, were enjoined from assembling together, in camp or
-otherwise,at or near the mines of the company, or at or so near the
residences of its employes, as to disturb, alarm, pr intimidate such em-
K ploys, ad as to prevent lhem from working i the mines, or to prevent
or interfere with them 'in passing to or fremh their work at the mines,
or in otherwise interfering with them as the employes of the company.
After being served with the injunction, defendants assembled and held
an open-air meeting within 1,000 feet from the opening of the mine, and
within 800 to 400 feet from the residences 'of the miners, and in plain
view of bdoh. It was also near where the miners were obliged to pass
in gotin to and from their work, and 150 feet from the company's
property. At segch meeting violent speeches were made by defendants,
in which they stated tha t the injunction did not amount to anything,
and would.'not stop them; that, if they were arrested, others would
tike theff 1'6ib; and they criticised the tourt for granting an injune-
tion, stating' that the jhdge was a tool of the, company, and no attention
should :be-paid to his order, but that the mifterS should be made to lay
dpwn their tools and 'cope out. It was shown that such meeting dis-
turbet the liners, who were afraid of violence, and that the works would
be blowii up; that they had no disagreement with their employer, and
a large mi[jortty of them did not desire to strike, but many said they
2. See nlgtion, vol. 27, Cent. Dig. 15 174, 175.