Berrien v. Pollitzer, 9555.
Decision Date | 15 December 1947 |
Docket Number | No. 9555.,9555. |
Citation | 165 F.2d 21 |
Parties | BERRIEN v. POLLITZER et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Spencer Gordon, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Charles A. Horsky and Miss Eleanor Sessoms, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellant.
Miss Olive B. Lacy, of Washington, D. C., for appellees Meta Grace Keebler et al.
Mr. John H. Connaughton, of Washington, D. C., for appellees Dorothy Spinks and Claire Wadden.
Mr. Albert E. Conradis, of Washington, D. C., for appellee Marie Moore Forrest.
Before EDGERTON, CLARK, and WILBUR K. MILLER, Associate Justices.
The plaintiff sued for an injunction against exclusion of herself and similarly-situated members of the National Woman's Party from the Party's headquarters at 114 B Street Northeast in Washington, D. C. Some of the defendants are members of the Party and others are its employees. The District Court, after a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.
The court found substantially the following facts, most of which are alleged in the complaint. The National Woman's Party is a nonstock nonprofit corporation, organized under the laws of the District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing complete equality for women. It owns the building in suit. This building is worth more than $100,000. It contains In January, 1947, a dispute arose within the Party, in consequence of which some members termed others "insurgents." Certain of the defendants, purporting to act as the National Council of the Party, adopted the following resolution:
"Resolved, that all elected and appointed members of the National Council who have identified themselves with the insurgent group be asked to resign and that failure to acquiesce within ten days of receipt of a letter to this effect will be construed as a resignation.
"Be it further resolved that all members of the insurgent group be temporarily excluded from Headquarters during pendency of a decision on the question in dispute." The bylaws of the Party provide that its National Council shall have control and management of its affairs. Plaintiff is a member of the Party and of the National Council, but she received no notice of the proposed resolution or of the meeting at which it was adopted. "Since the passage of the resolution the defendants have deprived, and are now depriving, plaintiff and certain other members of the National Woman's Party of access to said headquarters and the enjoyment and use of the same."
The complaint also states that a separate suit is pending to establish the validity of an election at which several of the present defendants were replaced by other persons as members of the National Council. The plaintiff does not ask the court to decide that question in the present suit.
The court held that it had no jurisdiction to grant an injunction because it "can interfere only to protect property rights." We think the court erred.
The doctrine that equity jurisdiction is limited to the protection of property rights conflicts with the familiar principle that equity may give preventive relief when the legal remedy of money damages, if available at all,1 is inadequate to redress a wrong. Obviously money has little in common with such personal rights or interests as reputation, domestic relations, or membership in nonprofit organizations. Money, one form of property, has much more in common with other forms of property. Invasions of personal interests are accordingly less capable of translation into money terms than invasions of property interests. No one can seriously contend that money is an adequate remedy for all sorts of personal wrongs. Clearly "injunctions and similar flexible remedies of equity are much better suited than a speculative action for damages to protect interests of personality * * *."2
The tradition that equity protects only property rights has been traced3 to a dictum of Lord Eldon which was not only unnecessary but contrary to the decision which evoked it. The decision was that a defendant should be restrained by injunction from publishing personal letters which the plaintiff had written to him.4 Dean Pound has pointed out that 5
"Law in action is breaking away from the property limitation which still receives much sanction from law in books."6 Even in books, the limitation has begun to lose ground.7 Judge Qua, for the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, has just reviewed the subject in a distinguished opinion from which we quote. 8
Even thirty years ago, when Dean Pound published his article on Equitable Relief Against Defamation and Injuries to Personality,9 there were a few classes of cases in which the property limitation, though often respected in form, was disregarded in substance. One such class involved 10 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hurwitz v. Directors Guild of America, Incorporated
...compare Madden v. Atkins, 4 N.Y.2d 283, 174 N.Y.S.2d 633, 151 N.E.2d 73, 74 A.L.R.2d 772 (1958). See also Berrien v. Pollitzer, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 23, 165 F.2d 21 (1947). Given the plaintiffs' strong interest here in continuing membership in a union of film and television directors, we do not ......
-
Division of Triple T Service, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp.
...Quadrangle Drilling Corp. v. Galek, 137 Misc. 637, 244 N.Y.S. 231; Spielman v. Sigrist, Sup., 72 N.Y.S.2d 861; Berrien v. Pollitzer, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 23, 165 F.2d 21; CPLR 6301; 12 Carmody-Wait 2d, Injunctions §§ The ultimate question raised herein is whether franchisors or distributors with......
-
N.A.A.C.P. v. Golding
...of Actions of Private Associations, 76 HARV. L. REV . 983, 1001-05 (1963) [hereinafter Developments ]; see also Berrien v. Pollitzer, 165 F.2d 21, 22-23 (D.C.Cir.1947). For example, some jurisdictions have applied contractual principles to resolve disputes regarding interpretation of member......
-
Women Prisoners of DC Dept. of Corr. v. DC
...common law recognizes that an important form of remedy for a tort is an injunction, granted before any damage occurs. Berrien v. Pollitzer, 165 F.2d 21, 22 (D.C.Cir. 1947) ("No one can seriously contend that money is an adequate remedy for all sorts of personal wrongs. Clearly `injunctions ......