Whitney v. Madden

• Decision Date: 20 May 1948
• Docket Number: No. 30384.,30384.
• Citation: 400 Ill. 185,79 N.E.2d 593
• Parties: WHITNEY v. MADDEN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

400 Ill. 185

79 N.E.2d 593

WHITNEY

v.MADDEN.

No. 30384.

Supreme Court of Illinois

May 20, 1948.

Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; James M. Corcoran, judge.

Action for libel by A. F. Whitney against T. M. Madden. From an order dismissing the complaint, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

William H. DeParcq, of Minneapolis, Minn., and Robert Martineau, of Chicago (Tom Davis and Donald T. Barbeau, both of Minneapolis, Minn., of counsel), for appellant.

Martin Hughes, of Hibbing, Minn., F. J. Rosemeier, of Virginia, Minn., and Bell, Boyd & Marshall, of Chicago (Thomas L. Marshall and Charles T. Martin, Jr., both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

MURPHY, Chief Justice.

This is a direct appeal from the superior court of Cook County by A. F. Whitney, plaintiff-appellant, in an action for libel against T. M. Madden, defendant-appellee, from an order of that court dismissing the complaint on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Appellant contends the order violated section 2 of article IV and the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States.

The complaint alleged that the defendant Madden, a resident of the State of Minnesota, sent a telegram from International Falls, Minnesota, to the plaintiff, Whitney, at his residence in Cleveland, Ohio, which telegram allegedly contained false and libelous matter, to the damage of the plaintiff at Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, and elsewhere, to the extent of $100,000. The defendant was served with a summons in Cook County, Illinois, while spending the night as a guest in a Chicago hotel and while in transit from one part of the United States to another. The defendant, by his counsel, entered special and limited appearance and filed a motion urging the trial court to decline jurisdiction of the case and to dismiss the complaint, because of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The motion was supported by an affidavit setting forth that plaintiff and defendant were both nonresidents of the State of Illinois; that the cause of action, if any, arose outside the State of Illinois; that it would impose a great hardship upon the defendant to have his case tried in the State of Illinois where he and his witnesses would be forced to travel great distances and live in temporary and expensive quarters for an extended period of time; that the courts of Illinois would be required to pass upon laws of other States; that the defendant has not been a resident of the State of Illinois, has not done business in the State of Illinois and owns no property in the State; that punitive damages are demanded and it is contrary to the public policy of this State to entertain such actions which arise outside the State of Illinois.

The trial court considered the motion and the affidavit, heard the argument of counsel on both sides and entered the following order: ‘It is Hereby Ordered, the court having heard the arguments of counsel for both sides and having considered the plaintiff's argument that to allow this motion would be to violate alleged constitutional rights of the plaintiff under Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States, that jurisdiction of this cause be, and the same is hereby declined, because of the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the cause is accordingly dismissed, and it is Hereby Ordered, that this order supersedes and rescinds an earlier order entered this same day.’

The plaintiff contends that the order of the trial court violated his constitutional rights under section 2 of article IV and section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the Federal constitution. Section 2 of article IV provides: ‘The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.’ The pertinent portion of the fourteenth amendment reads as follows: ‘Section 1. * * * No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; * * *.’

The Supreme Court of the United States held in some of its earliest decisions, and maintains today, that one of the constitutional privileges guaranteed in the two provisions above is the free access of every citizen of the United States to the Federal courts and the courts of the several States. Corfield v. Coryell, Fed.Cas. No. 3,230, 4 Wash. CC 371;Paul v. State of Virginia, 8 Wall. 168,19 L.E.2d 357;McKnett v. St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Co., 292 U.S. 230, 54 S.Ct. 690, 78 L.Ed. 1227. The privileges of citizenship in the United States are consistent in the various States, whether or not the citizen is also a resident of the State in which he seeks a redress of his wrongs. This court has, on many occasions, recognized the duty of the judicial system in this State toward litigants whose residence was in a sister State and no one has been denied access to our courts by virtue of his nonresident status. Marallis v. City of Chicago, 349 Ill. 422, 182 N.E. 394, 83 A.L.R. 1222. The nonresident litigant has the right to have the substantive law of the State in which the cause of action arose applied to the facts in issue; such law to be proved as any other fact. Edwards v. Schillinger, 245 Ill. 231, 91 N.e. 1048, 33 L.R.A.,N.S., 895, 137 Am.St.Rep. 308.

In the case of every constitutional privilege the mandates of organized society require certain limitations, wherein they must be exercised and granted with discretion. Freedom of speech and of the press are...