Wesley v. Native Lumber Co.
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Cenac v. Murry (Miss. 1992)
- MBF CORP. v. Century Bus. Communications, Inc. (Miss. 1995)
- Vestal v. Oden (Miss. 1986)
- Leigh Furniture and Carpet Co. v. Isom (Utah 1982)
- STANDARD FRUIT & STEAMSHIP COMPANY v. Putnam (Miss. 1974)
- Brown Bottling Group, Inc. v. Imperial Trading Co., L.L.C. (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 2022)
- MCBRIDE CONSULTING v. Waste Management (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)
- AmSouth Bank v. Gupta (Miss. 2002)
- Wong v. Stripling (Miss. 1997)
- Davenport v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. (5th Cir. 1992)
- Phillip Davenport, Jr. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (5th Cir. 1992)
- Shaw v. Burchfield (Miss. 1985)
- Martin v. Texaco, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 1969)
- IRBY ET UX. v. Citizens Natl. Bk. (Miss. 1960)
- Irby v. Citizens National Bank of Meridian (Miss. 1960)
- Green Hills Development Company, LLC v. Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 2020)
- Sidney Wong v. John Stripling (Miss. 1994)
- Steward v. World-Wide Automobiles Corp. (New York Supreme Court 1959)
- Beardsley v. . Kilmer (N.Y. 1923)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
In Globe & Rutgers Life Ins. Co. v. Firemen’s Fund Fire Ins. Co., ante 148, 52 South. 454, this court has set at rest in this state the question whether an act, legal in itself, may become illegal, and a ground of action, when accompanied with the malicious purpose to injure the business of another, resulting in such injury — holding the affirmative. The doctrine announced in Payne v. Western, etc., Ry. Co., 13 Lea (Tenn.) 501, 49 Am. Rep. 666, is in conflict with the better-reasoned authorities, and in our judgment unsound. It is true a person has the right to refuse to have business relations with any person whomsoever, whether his refusal is the result of caprice or malice, without laying himself liable to action therefor; but he cannot, from such motives, influence others to the same course, for the purpose of injuring the business of such other. The act and the accompanying motive together constitute the unlawful act. We approve the doctrine declared in Graham v. St. Charles R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 214, 16 South. 806, 21 L. R. A. 416, 49 Am. St. Rep. 366, and other cases along the same line, which are collated (as well as those in conflict) in the notes to Passaic Print Works v. Ely & Walker Fry Goods Co., 62 L. R. A. 707—710.
The court below, therefore, erred in sustaining the demurrer to the declaration and dismissing the suit.
Reversed and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.