BOYCOTT. An organized effort to ex clude a person from business relations with others by persuasion, intimidation and oth er acts which tend to violence, and thereby to coerce him, through fear of resulting in jury, to submit to dictation in 'the manage ment of his affairs. Casey v. Typographical Union, 45 Fed. 135, 12 L. R. A. 193, citing State v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46, 8 Atl. 890, 3 Am. St. Rep. 23.
In State v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46, 8 Atl. 890, 3 Am. St. Rep. 23, it was held that to threaten or intimidate a person to compel him against his will to do or abstain from doing any act which he has a legal right to do, is an unlawful conspiracy. See also 15 Q. B. D. 476 ; 23 id. 598; [1892] A. C. 25; [1893] 1 Q. B. 715; Toledo Ry. Co. v. Penn. Co., 54 Fed. 730, 19 L. R. A. 387; Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 1, 8 Am. Rep. 287; Sherry v. Perkins, 147 Mass. 212, 17 N. E. 307, 9 Am. St. Rep. 689; Lucke v. Clothing Cutters, 77 Md. 396, 26 Atl. 505, 19 L. R. A. 408, 39 Am. St. Rep. 421; Crump's Case, 84 Va. 940, 6 S. E. 620, 10 Am. St. Rep. 895 ; Hopkins v. Stave Co., 83 Fed. 912, 28 C. C. A. 99. The word itself is held in Casey v. Typographical Union, 45 Fed. 135, 12 L. R. A. 193, to be a threat. Intimidation and coercion are its essential elements; Gray v. Council, 91 Minn. 171, 97 N. W. 663, 63 L.
R. A. 753, 103 Am. St. Rep. 477, 1 Ann. Cas. 172.
On the other hand it is held that a boy cott is not unlawful, unless attended by some act in itself illegal; Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Hollis, 54 Minn. 223, 55 N. W. 1119, 21 L.
R. A. 337, 40 Am. St. Rep. 319; Longshore Printing & Pub. Co. v. Howell, 26 Or. 527, 38 Pac. 547, 28 L. R. A. 464, 46 Am. St. Rep. 640; that an act lawful in itself is not converted by a bad motive into an unlawful or tortious act ; Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1.
A product may be the subject of a bOy cott; Purvis v. Local No, 500, United Broth erhood of Carpenters & Joiners, 214 Pa. 348, 63 Atl. 585, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 642, 112 Am. St. Rep. 757, 6 Ann. Cas. 275; Purington v. Hinchliff, 219 Ill. 159, 76 N. E. 47, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 824, 109 Am. St. Rep. 322; Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274, 28 Sup. Ct. 301, 52 L. Ed. 488, 13 Ann. Cas. 815 ; and combinations for this purpose both on the part of dealers to compel one in the same business to join their association and of labor unions to force an 'employer to submit to their terms are usu ally in the United States held illegal; Pur ington v. Hinchliff, 219 Ill. 159, 76 N. E. 47, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 824. 109 Am. St. Rep. 322: Purvis v. Local No. 500, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners. 214 Pa. 348, 63 Atl. 585. 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 642, 112 Am. St. Rep. 757, 6 Ann. Cas. 275, where it was held "a man's business is his property, and to put one in actual fear of its loss or of injury to his business is often no less potent in co ercing than fear of violence to his person," citing Plant v. Woods, 176 Mass. 492, 57 N.