Bowlin v. Lyon
| Decision Date | 11 December 1885 |
| Citation | 25 N.W. 766,67 Iowa 536 |
| Parties | BOWLIN v. LYON AND ANOTHER. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Linn circuit court.
It is alleged in the first count of the petition that defendants were the proprietors of a place of public amusement in the city of Cedar Rapids, known as a skating rink, and that plaintiff, at a time when said rink was open to the public, applied to them for admission thereto, but that they wrongfully, maliciously, and insolently, and without any cause, except that he is a colored man, refused to admit him to said rink. In the second count it is alleged that, on another occasion, defendants, by a printed circular, which they caused to be circulated in the community, advertised and announced to the public that said rink would, on an evening which was named in the circular, be open to all persons on the payment of an admission fee, and that, at the time named, plaintiff went to said rink and offered to pay the fee charged other members of the public for admission, and requested to be admitted thereto, but that defendants wrongfully, maliciously, and insolently refused to receive said fee from him, or to permit him to enter the rink; and that their only reason for treating him in this manner was that he is a colored man. Defendants demurred to the petition on the ground that it did not appear by the averments thereof that plaintiff had any legal right to enter said skating rink on either of the occasions mentioned in the petition. The demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff appeals.W. G. Thompson and Albert & Albert, for appellant, Joseph Bowlin.
I. N. Whittam, for appellee, Mrs. M. C. Lyon and another.
The demurrer admits that plaintiff was excluded from the place in question on the sole ground that he is a colored man; and we will assume, in our consideration of the case, that there was nothing in his character or conduct which rendered him offensive or afforded any ground for excluding him. The single question presented by the record is whether the refusal by defendants on the occasions mentioned in the petition to permit plaintiff to enter their skating rink was a denial to him of a privilege which he had the right, under the law, to enjoy; and, in the outset, we deem it proper to say that the question whether plaintiff had the right to demand admission to the place is in no manner affected by the fact that he is a colored man. His legal right in the premises is not different from that of white men whose character and conduct are not different from his own. And if a white man of unobjectionable character and conduct could have demanded admission as a legal right on the occasions in question, the refusal of defendants to admit him operated as a denial to him of a legal right; for the law is no respecter of persons, and it guaranties no rights or privileges to one class of citizens which may not be enjoyed by every other class upon the same terms, and under like circumstances. If, then, the defendants had the right to deny plaintiff admission to their skating rink, this right must be based upon some consideration upon which they might have denied any other man of like character admission to it.
The allegation of the petition is that defendants kept and operated the rink as a place of public amusement, but it is not shown by any averment that the business of operating it is carried on under a license or privilege granted by the state, or the municipal corporation in which it is conducted, or that it is in any manner regulated or governed by any of the police regulations of the city. The reasonable inference from the allegations of the petition is that defendants are the owners of a building in which they permit parties to engage in the exercise of roller skating, for which privilege they charge a consideration, and where exhibitions are sometimes given by experts in the art of skating, on which occasions an...
To continue reading
Request your trial