NOTES AND QUESTIONS
1. Dioguardi's amended complaint read as follows:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JOHN DIOGUARDI, Plaintiff
HARRY M. DURNING Individually and as Collector of Customs at the Port of New York, Defendant
Plaintiff, as and for his bill of amended complaint the defendant, respectfully alleges:
FIRST: I want justice done on the basis of my medicinal extracts which have disappeared saying that they had leaked, which could never be true in the manner they were bottled.
SECOND: Mr. E.G. Collard Clerk in Charge, promised to give me my merchandise as soon as I paid for it. Then all of a sudden payments were stopped.
THIRD: Then, he didn't want to sell me my merchandise at catalogue price with the 5% off, which was very important to me, after I had already paid $5,000 for them, beside a few other expenses.
FOURTH: Why was the medicinaly given to the Springdale Distilling Co. with my betting price of $110; and not their price of $120.
FIFTH: It isn't so easy to do away with two cases with 37 bottles of one quart. Being protected, they can take this chance.
SIXTH: No one can stop my rights upon my merchandise, because of both the duly and the entry.
WHEREFORE: Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant, individually and as Collector of Customs at the Port of New York, in the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) together with interest from the respective dates of payment as set forth herein, together with the costs and disbursements of this action.
2. The Dioguardi decision was sharply criticized in McCaskill, The Modem Philosophy of Pleading: A Dialogue Outside the Shades, 38 A.B.A.J. 123 (1952), and became a focal point of opposition to the notice pleading introduced by the Federal Rules. How would the Dioguardi case have been decided in a jurisdiction that requires a statement of "facts constituting a cause of action"?