In contracts other than those of employment we find a divergence even greater than in that class of cases. The weight of modern authority holds that interference with any contract amounts to a tort.1 While the injured party has an action against the party in default upon the contract, he is not limited thereto, but he may also maintain an action against the wrongdoer who induced such breach.2

18Bourlier v. Macauley, 91 Ky. 136, 34 Am. St. Rep. 171, 11 L. R. A. 560, 15 S. W. 60.

19Bourlier v. Macauley, 01 Ky. 135, 34 Am. St. Rep. 171, 11 L. R. A. 560, 15 S. W. 60. (Inducing Mary Anderson to break her contract to appear at plaintiff's theatre.)

1 England. National Phonograph Co. v. Edison-Bell Consolidated Phonograph Co. [1908], 1 Ch. 335. (If interference is by tortious means, otherwise not.)

United States. Bitterman v. Louisville & Nashville Ry., 207 U. S. 205, 52 L. ed. 171; Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373, 55 L. ed. 502 (obiter); Automobile Insurance Co. v. Guaranty Securities Corporation, 240 Fed. 222.

Arkansas. Wakin v. Wakin, 119 Ark. 509, 180 S. W. 471.

Iowa. Dunshee v. Standard Oil Co., 152 Ia. 618, 36 L. R. A. (N.S.) 263, 132 N. W. 371.

Kansas. Vaught v. Pettyjohn, - Kan. - , 178 Pac. 623.

Kentucky. Friedberg v. McClary, 173 Ky. 579, L. R. A. 1917C 777, 191 S. W. 300.

Maryland. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Gardiner Dairy Co., 107 Md. 556, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 746, 69 Atl. 405.

Massachusetts. Beekman v. Mar-sters, 195 Mass. 205, 122 Am. St. Rep. 232, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 201, 11 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 332, 80 N. E. 817; McGurk v. Cronenwett, 199 Mass. 457,

19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 561, 85 N. E. 576; Wheeler-Stenzel Co. v. American Window Glass Co., 202 Mass. 471, L. R. A. 1915F, 1076, 89 N. E. 28.

Minnesota. Twitchell v. Nelson, 131 Minn. 375, 155 N. W. 621. "The same reasons cover every case where one person maliciously persuades another to break any contract with a third person. It is not confined to contracts for service." Jones v. Stanly, 76 N. Car. 355, 356 [quoted in Angle v. Ry., 151 U. S. 1, 15]. "At common law the remedies for breach of contract were confined to the contracting parties, and limited to direct damages and consequential damages proximately resulting from the act of him who is sued. This general rule admitted of one exception, and that was the right of action against a stranger for wrongfully enticing away a servant in violation of his contract of service with his master. The exception is said to have been based on the ancient statute of laborers. The early English cases limited the action to the enticement of menial servants, but the later cases, beginning with Lumley v. Gye, 2 El. & Bl. 216, have extended the doctrine beyond menial servants; and by the modern interpretation of this doctrine by the English courts the rule is extended to a malicious interference with any contract." Employing Printers' Club v. Doctor Blosser Co., 122 Ga. 509, 106 Am. St. Rep. 137, 69 L. R. A. 90, 50 S. E. 353.

This principle has been applied to contracts for the sale of realty;3 to contracts for the sale of personalty,4 whether the vendor,5 or the vendee,6 is induced to break the contract; to contracts to manufacture. an article to order;7 to contracts with a carrier of freight,8 or passengers;9 to contracts of lease,10 and to bonds given to the state, to the damage of the sureties thereon.11 It has been applied to an executed conspiracy between A and B to prevent B's divorced wife, X, from obtaining the benefits of her antenuptial contract with B, by having B transfer his property to A, in fraud of X's rights.12

2 National Phonograph Co. v. Edison-Bell Consolidated Phonograph Co. [908], 1 Ch. 335. (If interference is by tortious means; otherwise not); Raymond v. Yarrington, 96 Tex. 443, 97 Am. St. Rep. 914, 62 L. R. A. 962, 72 S. W. 580, 73 S. W. 800.

3Vaught v. Pettyjohn, 104 Kan. 174, 178 Pac. 623; Martens v. Reilly, 109 Wis. 464, 84 N. W. 840; McLennan v. Church, 163 Wis. 411, 158 Wis. 73.

4 Indiana. Jackson v. Stanfield, 137 Ind. 592, 23 L. R. A. 588, 36 N. E. 345, 37 N. E. 14.

Iowa. Dunshee v. Standard Oil Co., 152 Ia. 618, 36 L. R. A. (N.S.) 263, 132 N. W. 371.

Kentucky. Friedberg v. McClary, 173 Ky. 579, L. R. A. 1917C, 777, 191 S. W. 300.

Maryland. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Gardiner Dairy Co., 107 Md. 556, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 746, 69 Atl. 405.

Massachusetts. Wheeler-Stenzel Co. v. American Window Glass Co., 202 Mass. 471, L. R. A. 1915F, 1076, 89 N. E. 28.

5 England. Green v. Button, 2 Cromp. M. & R. 707.

Kentucky. Friedberg v. McClary, 173 Ky. 579, L. R. A. 1917C, 777, 191 S. W. 300.

Maryland. Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Gardiner Dairy Co., 107 Md. 556, 16 L.

R. A. (N.S.) 746, 69 Atl. 405; Sumwalt Ice & Coal Co. v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 114 Md. 403, 80 Atl. 48.

Massachusetts. Wheeler-Stenzel Co. v. American Window Glass Co., 202 Mass. 471, L. R. A. 1915F, 1076, 89 N. E. 28.

New York. Rice v. Manley, 66 N. Y. 82, 23 Am. Rep. 30.

Oklahoma. Schonwald v. Ragains, 32 Okla. 223, 39 L. R. A. (N.S.) 854, 122 Pac. 203.

6 National Phonograph Co. v. Edison-Bell Consolidated Phonograph Co. [1908], 1 Ch. 335. (Interference by fraud; no recovery if interference wrongful.) Dunshee v. Standard Oil Co., 152 Ia. 618, 36 L. R. A. (N.S.) 263, 132 N. W. 371; Cumberland Glass Mfg. Co. v. De Witt, 120 Md. 381, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 702, 87 Atl. 927; Morgan v. Andrews, 107 Mich. 33, 64 N. W. 869.

7 Morgan v. Andrews, 107 Mich. 33, 64 N. W. 869.

8 Jones v. Stanly, 76 N. Car. 355. 9 Nashville, etc., Ry. v. McConnell, 82 Fed. 65.

10 Twitchell v. Nelson, 131 Minn. 375, 155 N. W. 621.

11 Wakin v. Wakin, 119 Ark. 509, 180 S. W. 471.

12 Schwenn v. Schwenn, 166 Wis. 420, 2 A. L. R. 281, 166 N. W. 171.

The right of the injured party to recover from the party who is guilty of interference is especially clear if such interference is effected by an act which is wrongful in itself.13 If A has agreed with a wholesale dealer, B, not to sell B's goods to X, and X, by fraud, induces A to break such covenant and to sell such goods to X. B may recover damages from X for such fraud.14