Lumley v.Gye

Queen’s Bench,1853

2 El.& Bl.216,118 Eng.Rep.749

[The declaration alleged: Plaintiff,manager of the Queens Theatre for per-forming operas,contracted with Johanna Wagner for her to perform in his theatre for a designated time.She agreed not to perform elsewhere during the contract term.Defendant,“knowing the premises and maliciously intruding to injure plaintiff …,enticed and procured Wagner to refuse to perform.” Defendant demurred.]

Johanna Wagner (1828～1894),German mezzo-soprano,niece of the famous composer,Richard Wagner

ERLE.J.The question raised upon this demurrer is,whether an action will lie by the proprietor of a theatre against a person who maliciously procures an entire abandonment of a contract to perform exclusively at that theatre for a certain time;whereby damage was sustained? And it seems to me that it will.The authorities are numerous and uniform,that an action will lie by a master against a person who procures that a servant should unlawfully leave his service.The principle involved in these cases comprises the present;for,there,the right of action in the master arises from the wrongful act of the defendant in procuring that the person hired should break his contract,by putting an end to the relation of employer and employed;and the present case is the same.If it is objected that this class of actions for procuring a breach of contract of hiring rests upon no principle,and ought not to be extended beyond the cases heretofore decided,and that,as those have related to contracts respecting trade,manufactures,or household service,and not to performance at a theatre,therefore they are no authority for an action in respect of a contract for such performance;the answer appears to me to be,that the class of cases referred to rests upon the principle that the procurement of the violation of the rights is a cause of action,and that,when this principle is applied to a violation of a right arising upon a contract of hiring,the nature of the service contracted for is immaterial.

It is clear that the procurement of the violation of a right is a cause of action in all instances where the violation is an actionable wrong,as in violations of a right to property,whether real or personal,or to personal security: he who procures the wrong is a joint wrongdoer,and may be sued,either alone or jointly with the agent,in the appropriate action for the wrong complained of….He who maliciously procures a damage to another by violation of his right ought to be made to indemnify;and that whether he procures an actionable wrong or a breach of contract.He who procures the non-delivery of goods according to contract may inflict an injury,the same as he who procures the abstraction of goods after delivery;and both ought on the same ground to be made responsible.The remedy on the contract may be inadequate….

The result is that there ought to be,in my opinion,judgment for the plaintiff.