Stewart v. Lincoln-Douglas Hotel Corp., No. 10916.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtMAJOR, , and FINNEGAN and SWAIM, Circuit
Citation208 F.2d 379
PartiesSTEWART v. LINCOLN-DOUGLAS HOTEL CORP.
Decision Date11 January 1954
Docket NumberNo. 10916.

208 F.2d 379 (1953)

STEWART
v.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS HOTEL CORP.

No. 10916.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

December 1, 1953.

Rehearing Denied January 11, 1954.


208 F.2d 380

William R. Ming, Jr., Nelson M. Willis, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Henry R. Barber, Springfield, Ill., for appellee.

Before MAJOR, Chief Judge, and FINNEGAN and SWAIM, Circuit Judges.

SWAIM, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff, Roeschelle Stewart, a citizen of the State of Wisconsin, residing in Milwaukee, filed this action against the defendant, Lincoln-Douglas Hotel Corporation, an Illinois corporation, the owner and operator of the Abraham Lincoln Hotel in Springfield, Illinois, seeking damages from the defendant for its refusal to furnish him accommodations in said hotel. The complaint was in three counts. The first alleged breach of contract; the second, breach of common law duty as an innkeeper; and the third, violation of the Illinois statute, Ch. 38, § 125, Ill.Rev. Stats. (1951), which prohibits discrimination on account of race or color by proprietors of hotels and other places furnishing accommodations and services to the public. This statute also provides that any person violating the statute shall be liable to the person denied such accommodation in a sum not less than $25.00 nor more than $500.00.

The complaint was dismissed on the defendant's motion on August 15, 1952. In its memorandum and order dismissing the case, the District Court pointed out that, while the complaint demanded judgment for damages in the amount of $10,000.00, even though the damages were unliquidated, the court did not acquire jurisdiction in a diversity case when the complaint showed on its face that there could not possibly be a recovery for as much as the jurisdictional minimum of $3,000.00.

On August 20, 1952, on the motion of the plaintiff, the court set aside the order of dismissal and the plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. On October 16, 1952, fifty-six days later, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging the same facts in each count but adding in each count that the defendant's action in refusing the plaintiff accommodations was "wilful and intentional" and that the plaintiff was thereby harmed and damaged "in that the plaintiff was subjected to indignity and embarrassment at the hands of this defendant." To this amended complaint the defendant again filed a motion to dismiss.

The next entry in the record is an order entered May 4, 1953, dismissing the amended complaint, which order is in the following words:

"Order

(Filed May 4, 1953)

This matter coming before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the said complaint is hereby dismissed for the reasons set forth in the memorandum herein of August 14, 1952 and at direction of plaintiff without a hearing.

Chas. G. Briggle United States District Judge. (See Letter Attached Hereto)" "(The following letter is attached to the Order of May 4, 1953.) "(Filed May 4, 1953) "Nelson M. Willis Lawyer Phone Andover 3-3296 35 South Dearborn Street — Room 408 Chicago 3, Illinois April 10, 1953 Clerk of United States District Court Southern District of Illinois Springfield, Illinois

Dear Sir:

Enclosed please find original and one copy of an Order in the case of Stewart vs. Lincoln-Douglas Hotel Corporation.

This matter has been discussed with Mr. Barber and it is my understanding that he is agreeable to have this Order. I am sending him simultaneously a copy of the Order.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Hudson v. Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1, No. 89-2493
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 9 d3 Janeiro d3 1991
    ...Cir.1985) (voluntary dismissal not appealable because it is not an involuntary adverse judgment); Stewart v. Lincoln-Douglas Hotel Corp., 208 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir.1953) (party who consents to entry of order of judgment waives right to claim court committed error in entering the 9 Like the......
  • Stanford v. Utley, No. 17520.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 15 d1 Fevereiro d1 1965
    ...has no status to appeal. Francisco v. Chicago & A.R. Co., 149 F. 354, 355 (8 Cir. 1906); Stewart v. Lincoln-Douglas Hotel Corp., 208 F.2d 379, 381 (7 Cir. 1953); Foger v. Johnson, 362 S.W.2d 763, 765 (Mo.App.1962); Hunter v. Stanford, 198 Miss. 299, 22 So.2d 166 (1945); Duvall v. Duvall......
  • United States v. Zimmerman, No. 72-1148.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 30 d1 Abril d1 1973
    ...v. Jenkins, 455 F.2d 977 (4th Cir. 1972), Stanford v. Utley, 341 F.2d 265, 271 (8th Cir. 1965), Stewart v. Lincoln-Douglas Hotel Corp., 208 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1953), 9 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 23.06 at 719 (2d Ed.1972).2 Thus, the judgment of the Tax Court became final when appellant......
  • Chaneyfield v. City of New York, No. 62
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 5 d1 Abril d1 1976
    ...at 152, citing, e.g., Richardson v. United States, 336 F.2d 265, 266 (9th Cir. 1964). But see Stewart v. Lincoln-Douglas Hotel Corp., 208 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1953) (where district court intended by its order dismissing complaint to terminate litigation and plaintiff by promptly taking a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Hudson v. Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1, No. 89-2493
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 9 d3 Janeiro d3 1991
    ...Cir.1985) (voluntary dismissal not appealable because it is not an involuntary adverse judgment); Stewart v. Lincoln-Douglas Hotel Corp., 208 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir.1953) (party who consents to entry of order of judgment waives right to claim court committed error in entering the 9 Like the......
  • Stanford v. Utley, No. 17520.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 15 d1 Fevereiro d1 1965
    ...has no status to appeal. Francisco v. Chicago & A.R. Co., 149 F. 354, 355 (8 Cir. 1906); Stewart v. Lincoln-Douglas Hotel Corp., 208 F.2d 379, 381 (7 Cir. 1953); Foger v. Johnson, 362 S.W.2d 763, 765 (Mo.App.1962); Hunter v. Stanford, 198 Miss. 299, 22 So.2d 166 (1945); Duvall v. Duvall......
  • United States v. Zimmerman, No. 72-1148.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 30 d1 Abril d1 1973
    ...v. Jenkins, 455 F.2d 977 (4th Cir. 1972), Stanford v. Utley, 341 F.2d 265, 271 (8th Cir. 1965), Stewart v. Lincoln-Douglas Hotel Corp., 208 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1953), 9 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 23.06 at 719 (2d Ed.1972).2 Thus, the judgment of the Tax Court became final when appellant......
  • Chaneyfield v. City of New York, No. 62
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 5 d1 Abril d1 1976
    ...at 152, citing, e.g., Richardson v. United States, 336 F.2d 265, 266 (9th Cir. 1964). But see Stewart v. Lincoln-Douglas Hotel Corp., 208 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1953) (where district court intended by its order dismissing complaint to terminate litigation and plaintiff by promptly taking a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT