Not even a remote effect on interstate commerce is alleged in
the instant case. The "trade or commerce" affected was in Walla
Walla, Washington, and all the events related occurred there. It
is true that there are some allegations, not summarized above,
which describe events in Baltimore, Maryland; but these also are
entirely local in character. There are very general allegations
that defendants were conspiring to bring about the same sort of
monopoly in "numerous of the United States", but no facts are set
forth to support them, and they must be disregarded. Even if
these charges were substantial and supported by facts, there is
no reason to suppose that the formation of a number of local
units would have an effect on interstate commerce.
Since Count I is fatally defective in the ways just
demonstrated, it is unnecessary to consider the various other
objections to it which defendants urge.
Count II repeats most of the allegations of Count I, and states
a cause of action for tort, alleging an intentional and wrongful
invasion of plaintiff's right to establish and conduct a lawful
business, Shell Oil Co., Inc., v. State Tire & Oil Co., 6 Cir.,
1942, 126 F.2d 971, 975; see also Original Ballet Russe v. Ballet
Theater, 2 Cir., 1943, 133 F.2d 187, 189, and Pendleton v. Time,
Inc., 1949, 339 Ill. App. 188, 189, 89 N.E.2d 435. "No persons,
individually or by combination, have the right to directly or
indirectly interfere or disturb another in his lawful business or
occupation, or to threaten to do so, for the sake of compelling
him to do some act which, in his judgment, his own interest does
not require." Doremus v. Hennessy, 1898, 176 Ill. 608, 614,
52 N.E. 924, 925, 54 N.E. 524, 43 L.R.A. 797.
Plaintiff alleges here that the wrongful acts which damaged his
practice as a doctor were that the defendants conspired to and
did have him expelled on a false charge from membership in the
A.M.A., delayed unnecessarily in reinstating him and in
announcing the reinstatement. It is further alleged that these
steps were taken in violation of the Association's own rules and
by-laws. That such a course of action is illegal is plain. The
by-laws of a voluntary association are an agreement between it
and its members, by which both are bound. Porter v. King County
Medical Soc., 1936, 186 Wn. 410, 58 P.2d 367, 370; Pitcher v.
Board of Trade, 1887, 121 Ill. 412, 420, 13 N.E. 187.
Accordingly, a member may not complain of an expulsion when the
association has acted according to its rules. State of North
Dakota v. North Central Association of Colleges, 7 Cir., 1938,
99 F.2d 697, 700; Board of Trade, etc., v. Nelson, 1896, 162 Ill. 431,
44 N.E. 743. By the same token, an expulsion in violation of
the rules of the society is illegal. Supreme Lodge of A.O.U.W. v.
Zuhlke, 1889, 129 Ill. 298, 21 N.E. 789; Gardner v. East Rock
Lodge No. 141, 1921, 96 Conn. 198, 113 A. 308; Lahiff v. St.
Joseph's Total Abstinence & Benev. Society, 1904, 76 Conn. 648,
87 A. 692, 65 L.R.A. 92; People ex rel. Deverell v. Musical
Mutual Protective Union, 1889, 118 N.Y. 101, 23 N.E. 129.
Count II succeeds in stating a cause of action under these and
similar cases. While it is true, as defendant points out, that
the complaint is not "simple, concise, and direct", Fed.Rules
Civ.Proc. rule 8, 28 U.S.C.A., the allegations read as a whole
are sufficient, and plaintiff should have his day in court.
Defendants have submitted a separate motion to strike parts of
the complaint. It will be denied except as it relates to
Paragraphs 7(t) and 8 of Count I as incorporated in Count II.
These relate to the damages alleged to have resulted from
plaintiff's father's changing his will. It is apparent from the
face of the complaint that any such damage would be uncertain,
remote and speculative consequences of the tort for which
defendant is not legally responsible. Telluride Powder Co. v.
Williams, 10 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 673.
Count I of the amended complaint is dismissed.
Count II of the amended complaint will stand.
Paragraphs 7(t) and 8 of Count I as incorporated in Count II
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.