Thomas

A general demurrer to the amended complaint of plaintiff was sustained, plaintiff was given leave to file a second amended complaint, and, upon its failure so to do, judgment of dismissal was entered, from which judgment plaintiff prosecutes this appeal upon the judgment-roll.

The sole question presented for decision is: Does !the * amended complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action ?

The complaint alleges: That plaintiff is a California corporation doing business at the city of Stockton, in San Joaquin County, being engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling window glass and operating a glass plant for that purpose; that, in the operation of its plant, it is necessary that plaintiff should have in its employ skilled artisans; that “to that end and purpose the plaintiff entered into a contract during the month of September, 1917, at which time it commenced the operation of its plant, with approximately seventy-five artisans to work for the plaintiff during the season of 1917-18, under the terms! of which contract of employment the plaintiff agreed that the said artisans could work for the plaintiff during said period of time, and that so long…

I concur in the judgment and generally in the opinion of the presiding justice. It is admitted by respondents that “where a third person has knowl edge of a lawful contract existing between employer and employee, to induce such employee to break his contract, is actionable whether done in good faith or not. ’ ’ Assuming that to be the law, we must hold that the complaint—while admittedly imperfect—is sufficient as against a general demurrer. It does appear, as pointed out in the main opinion, that defendants had knowledge of the contract, although it is to be regretted that such fact' was not explicitly alleged. That the contract between plaintiff and its employees was and is lawful, of course, does not admit of doubt. And that it sufficiently appears that defendants have not only conspired together for the purpose of inducing the employees to break such contract, but are actually engaged in the effort to induce them to discontinue and abandon their employment, ” I think cannot be successfully controverted. In my opinion, there is much of surplusage in the complaint and I feel satisfied that it is open to attack on the ground of uncertainty in certain particulárs. But we are…