Commonwealth v. Hunt
45 Mass. 111 (1842)
Rule of Law:
A criminal conspiracy requires a combination of two or more persons acting in concert to accomplish a criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish a lawful purpose by criminal or unlawful means.
Facts:
- The defendants were journeymen bootmakers in Boston who organized a voluntary association called the Boston Journeymen Bootmakers' Society.
- The Society adopted rules requiring that its members would not work for any master workman (employer) who employed any journeyman who was not a member of the Society.
- Jeremiah Horne was a journeyman bootmaker who was not a member of the Society.
- Isaac B. Wait was a master cordwainer who employed Horne to make boots.
- The defendants agreed among themselves to refuse to work for Wait as long as he continued to employ Horne.
- The defendants were at-will employees and did not breach any term contracts by refusing to work.
- As a result of the defendants' refusal to work, Wait was compelled to discharge Horne from his employment to retain his other workers.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commonwealth indicted the defendants for criminal conspiracy in the Municipal Court of Boston.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury that the indictment described an unlawful conspiracy and that the Society was unlawful against the laws of the Commonwealth.
- The jury convicted the defendants.
- The defendants filed a bill of exceptions (appealed) to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, arguing the indictment was insufficient.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an association of workers who agree to refuse to work for any employer engaging a non-member—thereby compelling the employer to discharge the non-member—guilty of criminal conspiracy when no breach of contract or illegal force is used?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Shaw
No, such an association is not a criminal conspiracy because neither the object of the association nor the means used to achieve it were unlawful. The court reasoned that the common law of conspiracy applies in Massachusetts, but it requires a specific definition to avoid punishing innocent conduct. The court defined conspiracy as a combination to do something criminal/unlawful, or to do something lawful by criminal/unlawful means. Here, the purpose of the Society (to induce all bootmakers to join) was not unlawful, as such associations can be used for laudable goals like mutual aid. Furthermore, the means—agreeing not to work for a specific employer—was also not unlawful. Every free man has a right to work or not work as he sees fit; therefore, a group agreeing to exercise this right together is not criminal, provided they do not breach existing contracts. The court analogized this to a temperance society refusing to work with drinkers, or business competitors lowering prices to capture market share; while these actions may 'impoverish' others, they are legally permissible competition.
Analysis:
This is a landmark decision in American labor law because it effectively legalized the existence of labor unions and the use of the strike as a tactic. Prior to this decision, labor combinations were often viewed as criminal conspiracies per se under English common law. Chief Justice Shaw's opinion established that workers have the right to organize and collectively withhold their labor to improve their conditions, provided they do not use criminal means (such as violence or fraud) or pursue criminal ends. The decision distinguished between causing economic harm (which competition does naturally) and committing a legal injury. It set a high bar for the prosecution of labor activities, requiring specific proof of unlawful intent or acts.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"