Fletcher v. Wheat
Decision Date | 17 October 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 6981.,6981. |
Citation | 100 F.2d 432,69 App. DC 259 |
Parties | FLETCHER v. WHEAT et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Edmond C. Fletcher, of Washington, D. C., pro se.
Frank F. Nesbit, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before STEPHENS, MILLER, EDGERTON and VINSON, Associate Justices.
Appellant brought an action in the court below against a number of persons, including appellees Wheat and Adkins. In his declaration he alleged that Wheat was Chief Justice of the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, that Adkins was a Justice of the same court, but that each was sued in his individual right. The declaration alleged that appellees and others conspired to and did defame and injure appellant to his damage in the sum of $1,000,000.
Appellees' demurrer to the declaration was sustained; appellant elected to stand on his declaration; judgment was ordered for appellees; and this appeal is from the judgment.
The only specific act alleged to have been committed by appellee Wheat was the affixing of his signature to an order, as follows:
The only specific act alleged to have been committed by appellee Adkins was the affixing of his signature to an order, as follows:
The declaration contained, also, allegations to the effect that appellees Wheat and Adkins engaged in a conspiracy against appellant, participating therein through the acts of co-conspirators. These acts, it was alleged, consisted in (1) delivering to appellee Wheat a complaint in disbarment against appellant; (2) requesting the assistant clerk in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (now the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia) to notify the Court of Claims when appellant was finally disbarred from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gamage v. Peal
...supra; O'Campo v. Hardisty, supra; Gregoire v. Biddle, 2 Cir., 177 F.2d 579; Waterman v. Nelson, 2 Cir., 177 F.2d 965; Fletcher v. Wheat, 69 App. D.C. 259, 100 F.2d 432; Cooper v. O'Connor, supra; Hartline v. Clary, supra; Carson v. Behlen, D.C., 136 F.Supp. The fact that plaintiff reported......