Dioguardi v. Durning

Facts

Dioguardi, who tried to import bottles of tonics from Italy, wrote his own complaint without a lawyer. It was not fully clear how the goods came into the hands of Durning, the Collector of Customs at the Port of New York. Dioguardi said he had complied with the revenue laws and had claimed a refund on merchandise two-thirds paid for in Milano, Italy, which the collector denied. The court read the papers to show that his original dispute was with his consignor over whether anything more was due, and that the collector held the goods for a year, presumably as unclaimed merchandise under a federal statute, and then sold what was left at public auction. Dioguardi made two main complaints. First, at the auction on October 9, 1940, the collector sold his merchandise to another bidder at a price of $110, which Dioguardi called his own price, rather than the other bidder's price of $120. Second, three weeks before the sale, two cases of 19 bottles each disappeared. His amended complaint suggested the collector explained the loss by saying the bottles had leaked, which he said could not be true given how they were bottled. He asked for $5,000 in damages, with interest and costs, from the collector individually and as collector.

Issues

1. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, did a layman's poorly drafted complaint state a claim upon which relief can be granted, so that dismissal on the face of the complaint was improper?
2. Can a collector of customs be held personally liable for a default or negligence in the performance of his duties?

Holding

Dioguardi's complaints, however inartistically written, disclosed claims that the collector converted or lost two cases of tonics and sold the rest in a way that did not match the required public auction. That was enough to withstand a motion directed only to the face of the complaint, so dismissal was error.