Shemaitis v. Froemke
| Decision Date | 12 June 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 10348.,10348. |
| Citation | 189 F.2d 963 |
| Parties | SHEMAITIS v. FROEMKE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Alois S. Knapp, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Charles J. Gallagher, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before DUFFY, LINDLEY and SWAIM, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing his claim for damages arising, as he averred, from violation of his civil rights. The complaint alleged merely that, while plaintiff was in rightful possession of certain premises, defendant removed therefrom plaintiff's personal belongings; that in doing so defendant wrongfully failed to surrender and deliver to plaintiff certain specified items of the total value of $140, and that, by reason thereof, plaintiff suffered great mental anguish, humiliation and loss of good name and was damaged to the extent of $10,000. Defendant's answer denied these averments and prayed that the complaint be dismissed. The District Court entered an order striking the complaint but granting plaintiff 20 days within which to amend. The amended complaint, filed in pursuance of this order, was substantially the same as the original, except that it set forth in full Section 43 of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 8 U.S.C.A. § 43, the statutory provision upon which plaintiff bases his claim. Defendant thereupon filed a motion that the complaint be stricken for want of jurisdiction and the District Court, allowing the motion, entered the order of dismissal from which the appeal has been taken.
Section 43 of the Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 43, provides that "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." It is settled beyond cavil that the act does not protect one from invasion of private rights by individual action and that, to present a valid cause of action under the section quoted, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted or claimed to act under color of law. Logan v. U. S., 144 U.S. 263, 293, 12 S.Ct. 617, 36 L.Ed. 429; Hodges v. U. S., 203 U.S. 1, 14-20, 27 S.Ct. 6, 51 L.Ed. 65; Love v. Chandler, 8 Cir., 124 F.2d 785, 786-7; Bottone v. Lindsley, 10...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Jennings
...whether the inhabitant of a state has been deprived of a federal right by one who acts under color of any state law." In Shemaitis v. Froemke, 7 Cir., 189 F.2d 963, the court said: "It is settled beyond cavil that the act civil rights does not protect one from invasion of private rights by ......
-
Hoffman v. Halden
...251 F. 2d 780; Davis v. Foreman, 7 Cir., 1958, 251 F.2d 421, 422; McShane v. Moldovan, 6 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 1016; Shematis v. Froemke, 7 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 963, 964; Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 3 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 240; Schatte v. International Alliance etc., 9 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2......
-
Byrd v. Sexton
...v. Chandler, 8 Cir., at page 786 of 124 F.2d, supra; Moffett v. Commerce Trust Co., 8 Cir., at page 247 of 187 F.2d supra; Shemaitis v. Froemke, 7 Cir., 189 F.2d 963; Bottone v. Lindsley, 10 Cir., 170 F.2d 705, 707, certiorari denied 336 U.S. 944, 69 S.Ct. 810, 93 L.Ed. 1101. Instead, the p......
-
Griffin v. Breckenridge
...was the case of Collins v. Hardyman, supra. Such was the case in Wallach v. Cannon, 8th Cir. 1966, 357 F.2d 557, and in Shemaitis v. Froemke, 7th Cir. 1951, 189 F.2d 963. The Fourteenth Amendment is only a protection against the encroachment upon enumerated rights by or with the sanction of......