## Facts

- St. Paul Union Stockyards Co. (defendant) operated a livestock yard with facilities for loading, unloading, caring for, buying, selling, and dealing in livestock.
- Bacon (plaintiff) had been employed “in and about” the defendant’s yards since August 1, 1918, working in the livestock business for Drover Live Stock Commission Company.
- Plaintiff alleged he regularly earned and received a salary of $200 per month from Drover.
- Plaintiff’s work for Drover required him to conduct business at and in connection with defendant’s stockyards.
- Plaintiff alleged that on July 3, 1923, defendant wrongfully, unlawfully, and willfully excluded him from the stockyards.
- Plaintiff further alleged that defendant barred and prevented him from carrying on his occupation in the yards and forbade any person, firm, or corporation from employing him in or about the yards.
- Plaintiff alleged defendant continued, after July 3, 1923, to bar and exclude him and to prevent livestock dealers located at the yards from employing him in or about the yards.
- Plaintiff alleged he was then, and had remained, able and willing to continue his employment at the stockyards at the same salary except for defendant’s conduct.
- Plaintiff alleged he was entitled to carry on his work in defendant’s yards subject only to compliance with reasonable and non-discriminatory rules and regulations defendant might make and enforce.
- Plaintiff sued for damages for wrongful interference with his contractual relations/employment, and defendant demurred on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

## Issues

1. Whether a complaint alleging an existing employment relationship and that the stockyards operator willfully excluded the plaintiff from the yards and told others not to employ him there, thereby preventing him from continuing his job, states a cause of action for tortious interference with contract/employment sufficient to survive a demurrer.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the order sustaining the demurrer.
- The court held the complaint alleged facts that, if proved, would constitute wrongful interference with plaintiff’s employment (a tort).
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Wrongful interference with the contract relations of another that causes a breach is a tort.
- At the demurrer stage, the pleaded facts are taken as true; the question is whether those facts, if proved, would amount to a legally recognized wrong.
- A plaintiff states a tortious-interference claim by pleading: (1) a subsisting employment or contractual relation; (2) intentional interference by the defendant that is alleged to be wrongful; and (3) resulting damage, such as loss of wages or employment.
- Where a defendant controls access to the only premises where the plaintiff can perform the work, alleged exclusion from those premises—combined with alleged directions to others not to hire the plaintiff there—can constitute actionable interference with employment.
- Any claimed justification or privilege for the defendant’s conduct is generally a matter for defense and proof later in the case, not a basis to defeat the complaint on demurrer.

## Conclusion

Because Bacon alleged steady employment with Drover at the stockyards, that St. Paul Union Stockyards Co. intentionally and wrongfully excluded him and warned others not to hire him there, and that these acts prevented him from continuing his work and caused wage loss, the Minnesota Supreme Court held the pleading stated a tortious-interference claim and reversed the order sustaining the demurrer.


Bacon v. St. Paul Union Stockyards Co., 201 N.W. 326, 161 Minn. 522 (1924)