
    Asher Green, Respondent, v. Andrew Davies and Others, Appellants, Impleaded with Israel Oppenheim, Defendant.
    
      Complaint charging a conspiracy to injure the plaintiff’s good name, setting forth the acts done by each defendant — it sets forth a single cause of action against joint tort feasors.
    
    A complaint alleged that certain of the defendants were members of a firm and. that the other defendants were employees thereof; that the defendants entered into an agreement to injure the plaintiff in his good name and reputation for the purpose of ruining and destroying him as a business competitor by causing the plaintiff’s customers to believe that he was insane and not capable of' attending to his business or affairs; that he was an irresponsible person and ought not to be at large. The complaint then set out the specific act which each of the defendants did, and alleged that such acts were in accordance with, such prearranged plan, and that by reason thereof plaintiff had been damaged to the extent of $20,000.
    
      Held, that the complaint stated a single cause of action, and that, if the allegations thereof were true, the defendants were joint tort feasors, and that all of them were liable for the acts of each.
    Appeal by the defendants, Andrew Davies and others, from an. interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kew York on the 13th day of January, 1903, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the Kew York Special Term, overruling the said defendants’ demurrers to the amended complaint.
    
      S. Livingston Samuels, for the appellants.
    
      Laurence G. Goodhart, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam:

This appeal is from an intérlocutory judgment overruling demurrers to the complaint.

The complaint alleges, in substance, that the defendants Green and Oppenlieim are members of the firm of Green & Co., and that, the defendants Davies and Gorman are employees of such firm that at the time stated the defendants entered into an agreement to injure the plaintiff in his good name and reputation for the purpose of ruining and destroying him as a competitor in business, by causing the customers of the plaintiff to believe that he was insane and not capable of attending to his business or affairs; that he was an rresponsible person and ought not to be at large. The complaint then sets out the specific act which each of the defendants did and alleges that such acts were in accordance with such prearranged plan and that by reason thereof plaintiff has been damaged to the extent of $20,000.

We think the demurrers were properly overruled. There is but one cause of action stated and that is that the plaintiff has been damaged by the united action of all of the defendants in pursuance of an agreement between them to accomplish an illegal purpose. If it be true, as alleged, that defendants did enter into an agreement to injure the reputation or business of the plaintiff by causing-it to be believed by his friends or customers that he is insane, unfit, to associate with and dangerous to be at large, and in the carrying out of the agreement he has been damaged, then all of the defendants are liable for the acts of each party to the agreement. They are joint tort feasors and for whatever injury has been done each and all are liable, (Rourke v. Elk Drug Co., 75 App. Div. 146.).

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, with costs. with leave to the defendants, however, to withdraw demurrers and answer on payment of costs in this court and in the court below.

Present — Van Brunt, P. J., Patterson, Ingraham, McLaughlin and Laughlin, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendants to withdraw demurrers and answer on payment of costs in this court and in the court below.  