O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 (1914). · Go Syfert
Search
O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 (1914). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
725 citation events (25 in the last 25 years) across 74 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tony Fisher v. Jordan Hollingsworth (ca3, 2024-08-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1908 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1908 1967 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 40 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tony Fisher v. Jordan Hollingsworth
3rd Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-2. 85 See United States v. Adams, 36 F.4th 137 , 147 (3d Cir. 2022) (“[A]n alternate holding has the same force as a single holding; it is binding precedent.”) (cleaned up), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 238 (2022). 86 O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 322 (1914). 87 See Johnson v. Ry.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE CO. v. POPE
Okla. · 2022 · confidence medium
Marcus v. Hess , 317 U.S. 537, 550-51 , 63 S.Ct. 379 , 87 L.Ed. 443 (1943) (statute providing civil remedy in the amount of double damages afforded complete indemnity [or compensatory damages] for the injuries suffered, Congress could provide three-fold and remain fully in the common law tradition, and "This Court has noted the general practice in state statutes of allowing double or treble or even quadruple damages."). 48 Id . 317 U. S. at 551 (citing O'Sullivan v. Felix , 233 U.S. 318, 324, 325 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914) and stating: "Punitive or exemplary damages have been held re…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE CO. v. POPE
Okla. · 2022 · confidence medium
Id . 317 U. S. at 551 (citing O'Sullivan v. Felix , 233 U.S. 318, 324, 325 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914) and stating: "Punitive or exemplary damages have been held recoverable under a statute like this which combines provision for criminal punishment with others which afford a civil remedy to the individual injured.").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE CO. v. POPE
Okla. · 2022 · confidence medium
Marcus v. Hess , 317 U.S. 537, 550-51 , 63 S.Ct. 379 , 87 L.Ed. 443 (1943) (statute providing civil remedy in the amount of double damages afforded complete indemnity [or compensatory damages] for the injuries suffered, Congress could provide three-fold and remain fully in the common law tradition, and "This Court has noted the general practice in state statutes of allowing double or treble or even quadruple damages."). 48 Id . 317 U. S. at 551 (citing O'Sullivan v. Felix , 233 U.S. 318, 324, 325 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914) and stating: "Punitive or exemplary damages have been held re…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE CO. v. POPE
Okla. · 2022 · confidence medium
Marcus v. Hess , 317 U.S. 537, 550-51 , 63 S.Ct. 379 , 87 L.Ed. 443 (1943) (statute providing civil remedy in the amount of double damages afforded complete indemnity [or compensatory damages] for the injuries suffered, Congress could provide three-fold and remain fully in the common law tradition, and "This Court has noted the general practice in state statutes of allowing double or treble or even quadruple damages."). 48 Id . 317 U. S. at 551 (citing O'Sullivan v. Felix , 233 U.S. 318, 324, 325 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914) and stating: "Punitive or exemplary damages have been held re…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc. (2×)
SCOTUS · 1986 · confidence medium
Such a limited interpretation cannot be reconciled with the broader language of the Act ("The tribe and its members shall not be entitled to any of the special services performed by the United States for Indians because of their status as Indians"; " all statutes of the United States that affect Indians because of their status as Indians shall be inapplicable to them"; "the laws of the several states shall apply to them in the same manner they apply to other persons or citizens within their jurisdiction") (emphasis added). [18] See, e. g., Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U. S. 261, 266-267 (1985); Board…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burnett v. Grattan (2×)
SCOTUS · 1984 · confidence medium
On several occasions, this Court has rejected arguments that a particular federal statute of limitations applied, O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U. S. 318, 324-325 (1914) (rejecting federal statute of limitations for suits for a penalty, because civil actions under Civil Rights Act are remedial), or has implicitly rejected linkage with other federal statutes, emphasizing the independence of the remedial scheme established by the Reconstruction-Era Acts.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Benjamin Harrison Williams, Jr. v. Charlie Rhoden, Charles Tompkins, J. S. Padgett
5th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 *1104 (1914); Dumas v. Town of Mount Vernon, 612 F.2d 974, 977 (5th Cir. 1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In re Harmer Coal Co.
paenvhrbd · 1974 · confidence medium
O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 324, 325 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) North Carolina Theatres, Inc. v. Thompson
4th Cir. · 1960 · confidence medium
Describing the statute the Court said ( 232 N.C. at page 134 , 59 S.E.2d at page 603 ): “The Act is clearly a Federal penal law; for ‘the term “penalty” involves the idea of punishment for the infraction of the law, and is commonly used as including any extraordinary liability to which the law subjects a wrongdoer in favor of the person wronged, not limited to the damages suffered.’ ” The Court cited O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 319, 324 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 , where it is said that the term “penalty” involves the idea of punishment for the infraction of the law…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) North Carolina Theatres, Inc. v. Allen B. Thompson
4th Cir. · 1960 · confidence medium
Describing the statute the Court said ( 232 N.C. at page 134 , 59 S.E.2d at page 603 ): 13 "The Act is clearly a Federal penal law; for `the term "penalty" involves the idea of punishment for the infraction of the law, and is commonly used as including any extraordinary liability to which the law subjects a wrongdoer in favor of the person wronged, not limited to the damages suffered.'" 14 The Court cited O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 319, 324 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 , where it is said that the term "penalty" involves the idea of punishment for the infraction of the law and is commo…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States Ex Rel. Marcus v. Hess (2×)
SCOTUS · 1943 · confidence medium
O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 324, 325 .
cited Cited "see" Lamont Bernard Heard v. Yarnice Strange
6th Cir. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 321–22 (1914).
cited Cited "see" GUARDINO JR. v. STEWART-MARCHMAN ACT BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE
D.N.J. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 (1914).
cited Cited "see" Wilson v. Garcia
SCOTUS · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U. S. 318 (1914).
examined Cited "see" Arvie v. Century Tel. Enterprises, Inc. (3×)
La. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914) " See also, Jones v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 679 F.2d 32 (5th Cir.1982), cert den., ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 2420 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1310 (1983).
examined Cited "see" Evans v. CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TEL. CO. OF MD. (3×)
D. Maryland · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 322-25 , 34 S.Ct. 596, 597-599 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . 15 It is also significant that the borrowed state limitations period at issue in Johnson concerned the time for filing a civil action in state court. 421 U.S. at 456 n.2, 95 S.Ct. at 1718 n.2; see id. at 462 n.7, 95 S.Ct. at *507 1721 n.7.
discussed Cited "see" Spiegel v. School District No. 1 (2×)
10th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
Meeker v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 236 U.S. 412, 422-23 , 35 S.Ct. 328 , 59 L.Ed. 644 (1915); see O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 324-25 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed.2d 980 (1914); Brady v. Daly, 175 U.S. 148, 152-58 , 20 S.Ct. 62 , 44 L.Ed. 109 (1899); Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 667-69 , 13 S.Ct. 224 , 36 L.Ed. 1123 (1892).
discussed Cited "see" Sydney Spiegel v. School District No. 1, Laramie County, Wyoming (2×)
10th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
Meeker v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 236 U.S. 412, 422-23 , 35 S.Ct. 328 , 59 L.Ed. 644 (1915); See O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 324-25 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed.2d 980 (1914); Brady v. Daly, 175 U.S. 148, 152-58 , 20 S.Ct. 62 , 44 L.Ed. 109 (1899); Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 667-69 , 13 S.Ct. 224 , 36 L.Ed. 1123 (1892). 7 It is undisputed that Spiegel's federal court claim was filed more than two years after his termination became final.
examined Cited "see" Russ v. Ratliff (3×)
8th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); Peterson v. Fink, 515 F.2d 815 (8th Cir. 1975); Brown v. United States, 486 F.2d 284 (8th Cir. 1973), aff’g Brown v. United States, 342 F.Supp. 987 (E.D.Ark. 1972); Johnson v. Dailey, 479 F.2d 86 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1009 , 94 S.Ct. 371 , 38 L.Ed.2d 246 (1973); Green v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 463 F.2d 337 (8th Cir. 1972); Glasscoe v. Howell, 431 F.2d 863 (8th Cir. 1970).
examined Cited "see" Fred A. ZUNIGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMFAC FOODS, INC., D/B/A Wilhelm Foods, Inc., Defendant-Appellee (3×)
10th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 [ 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 ] (1914); (Civil Rights Act of 1871); Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp., 383 U.S. 696, 701-704 , [ 86 S.Ct. 1107 , 16 L.Ed.2d 192 ] (1966) (Labor Management Relations Act) . . . ” Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 462 , 95 S.Ct. 1716, 1721 , 44 L.Ed.2d 295 .
examined Cited "see" Russ v. Ratliff (3×)
8th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); Peterson v. Fink, 515 F.2d 815 (8th Cir. 1975); Brown v. United States, 486 F.2d 284 (8th Cir. 1973), aff'g Brown v. United States, 342 F.Supp. 987 (E.D.Ark.1972); Johnson v. Dailey, 479 F.2d 86 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1009 , 94 S.Ct. 371 , 38 L.Ed.2d 246 (1973); Green v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 463 F.2d 337 (8th Cir. 1972); Glasscoe v. Howell, 431 F.2d 863 (8th Cir. 1970). 11 It is clear that if plaintiffs had sued the City initially in 1977, their claim would have been barred by any Arkansas statute of li…
examined Cited "see" Wilson v. Continental Group, Inc. (3×)
M.D.N.C. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914).
examined Cited "see" Smith v. Woodhollow Apartments (3×)
W.D. Okla. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
John’s Hospital, 414 F.Supp. 1202 (N.D.Okl.1976); Jefferson v. Mentzell, supra; see O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); Beard, v. Stephens, 372 F.2d 685 (Fifth Cir. 1967).
examined Cited "see" Boyce v. School Dist. of Philadelphia (3×)
E.D. Pa. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914), cited in Occidental Life Insurance Co. v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355, 367 , 97 S.Ct. 2447 , 53 L.Ed.2d 402 (1977).
examined Cited "see" Page v. U. S. Industries, Inc. (3×)
5th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914).
examined Cited "see" 15 Fair empl.prac.cas. 487, 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7754 John D. Page and Don Thomas v. U. S. Industries, Inc., Rebecca Williams v. Cle Corporation, D/B/A Sheraton-Chateau Lemoyne (3×)
5th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914). 21 Ms. Williams argues that under Louisiana law we must look to her pleadings: that the character she gives them and the form of her action determine the nature of her claim.
examined Cited "see" Meyer v. Frank (3×)
E.D.N.Y · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
Swan v. Board of Higher Education, 319 F.2d 56 (2d Cir, 1963); see O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914).
examined Cited "see" Ronnell E. Hildebrand v. Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis (3×)
8th Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 322 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); Warren v. Norman Realty Co., 513 F.2d 730, 733 (8th Cir. 1975); Baker v. F & F Investment, 420 F.2d 1191, 1194 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, Universal Builder’s, Inc. v. Clark, 400 U.S. 821 , 91 S.Ct. 40 , 27 L.Ed.2d 49 (1970).
discussed Cited "see" Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. (2×)
SCOTUS · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U. S. 318 (1914) (Civil Rights Act of 1871); Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp., 383 U. S. 696, 701-704 (1966) (Labor Management Relations Act); Cope v. Anderson, 331 U. S. 461 (1947) (National Bank Act); Chattanooga Foundry v. Atlanta, 203 U. S. 390 (1906) (Sherman Act); Campbell v. Haverhill, 155 U. S. 610 (1895) (Patent Act).
examined Cited "see" Cox v. Stanton (3×)
E.D.N.C. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Almond v. Kent, 459 F.2d 200 (4th Cir. 1972), citing O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); Thomas v. Howard, 455 F.2d 228 (3rd Cir. 1972); Smith v. Cremins, 308 F.2d 187 (9th Cir. 1962).
examined Cited "see" Francis J. Savage v. United States of America (3×)
8th Cir. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 322-323 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914) (Civil Rights Act of 1870).
examined Cited "see" Fitzgerald v. Appolonia (3×)
E.D. Pa. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
“In an action under the civil rights statute, while state law controls as to the time within which an action must be begun, the manner in which it is commenced and when it is deemed to have begun, being procedural and not substantive, is covered by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Jackson v. Duke, 259 F.2d 3, 6 (5th Cir. 1958); quoted in 2 Moore's Federal Practice, p. 784, ¶ 3.07 [4.-3-2]; cited as controlling in McGuire v. Baker, 421 F.2d 895 (5th Cir. 1970); see O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914).
examined Cited "see" Conard v. Stitzel (3×)
E.D. Pa. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
See O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914) ; Chattanooga Foundry and Pipe Works v. City of Atlanta, 203 U.S. 390 , 27 S.Ct. 65 , 51 L.Ed. 241 (1906) ; McClaine v. Rankin, 197 U.S. 154 , 25 S.Ct. 410 , 49 L.Ed. 702 (1905) ; Campbell v. Haverhill, 155 U.S. 610 , 15 S.Ct. 217 , 39 L.Ed. 280 -(1895). 5 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Timothy M. Burgh v. Borough Council of the Borough of Montrose Timothy Burgh (3×)
3rd Cir. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Occidental Life, 432 U.S. at 367 , 97 S.Ct. 2447 ; see also id. (citing, inter alia, Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 179-82 , 96 S.Ct. 2586 , 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976) (state limitations period applies to Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ) and O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1911) (same as to Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Clymer v. Grzegorek (3×)
E.D. Va. · 1981 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914).
examined Cited "see, e.g." 17 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1790, 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7811 Irma Clark v. Lon Mann (3×)
8th Cir. · 1977 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); Chambers v. Omaha Public School Dist., 536 F.2d 222, 225 (8th Cir. 1976); Warren v. Norman Realty Co., 513 F.2d 730, 733 (8th Cir. 1975).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Gale Hearold Johnson v. John A. Dailey (6×)
8th Cir. · 1973 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e. g., O'Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 322-323 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914); Savage v. United States, 450 F.2d 449, 450-452 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1043 , 92 S.Ct. 1327 , 31 L.Ed.2d 585 (1972); C.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Russell M. Smith v. John J. Cremins, Jr., John F. Mahon, Jr. (3×)
9th Cir. · 1962 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318 , 34 S.Ct. 596 , 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914). 13 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Hattie Brazier v. W. B. Cherry (3×)
5th Cir. · 1961 · signal: see also · confidence low
So, too, did Crews v. United States, 5 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 746 10 This argument stresses remarks made by Representative Poland, a member of the Second Joint House Senate Conference Committee proposing a substitute for the Sherman Amendment, 15 U.S.C.A. 1 et seq.; See Congressional Globe, 42nd Cong. 1st Sess. at 804; Representative Shellabarger, Manager of the bill in the House, ibid at 805; and Senator Edmunds, sponsor in the Senate, ibid at 820; see also ibid at 807 On this thesis the plaintiff overcomes the one-year limitation period by contending that this refers to the 'section' and not t…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
O’sullivan
v.
Felix
249.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 13, 1914.
233 U.S. 318
Mr. W. S. Parkerson and Mr. E. -A. Ó’Sullivan for plaintiff in error., Mr. Charles S. Rice, Mr. R. B. Montgomery dnd Mr. Alfred Billings for defendants in error.
McKenna.
Cited by 267 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the court.

Action for damages for personal assault upon plaintiff in error, herein called plaintiff, by defendants in error, referred to as defendants, in the sum of sixty thousand dollars.

The petition alleges that defendants and others were indicted for violating § 5508 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The indictment is set out in the petition and charges, with the usual verbosity of such instruments,[*320] that an election was held in the parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, on November 3, 1908, for presidential electors, members of Congress, and certain municipal officers under and in accordance with the laws and Constitution of the United States; that certain named persons were, as defendants well knew, qualified to vote at such election, that such persons were at the polling places with the intention and for the purpose of voting, and, knowing this, the defendants feloniously conspired and confederated with each other and other persons to intimidate and prevent and-did prevent by the use of deadly weapons such persons from voting.

It is alleged that the indictment further charged in a second count, a violation of § 5509 in that the defendants, with other named persons, conspiring to intimidate the voters named in the first count from voting at the election named, “did then and there, with force and arms, armed with dangerous weapons, to-wit: pistols, guns, scissors, wilfully and maliciously, unlawfully and feloniously and upon” the defendant commit an assault, and with the purpose and in the disposition described, “with a dangerous weapon, to-wit: a pair of scissors, inflict a wound less than mayhem.”

That the defendants herein were convicted on both counts and sentenced to fine and imprisonment, and upon appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals the conviction, sentence and fine were affirmed.

That the defendants conspired to prevent and did prevent the voters named in the indictment from voting and that in furtherance of the conspiracy plaintiff was maliciously and without cause or provocation “cut, bruised, beaten, his face and eye blackened, his beard cut, he knocked down" senseless,- and other indignities were heaped upon him” by-the defendants, for which-he has suffered damages in the sum of $60,000.

That plaintiff is sixty-five years of age, has practiced[*321] law and held positions- of honor and trust in the State, having been district attorney, state senator, and city attorney for the city of New Orleans.'

The petition recites the injuries plaintiff received in defending, himself from the assault upon him, and that he “was forced to appear in public, in performing his duties, carrying on his person the signs of the degradation and humiliation placed upon him.”

The items of damage are set out as follows: For the wounding less than mayhem, $25,000; for humiliation, degradation and public ridicule and pain of mind, $25,000; punitive and exemplary damages, $10,000. Judgment was prayed for $60,000, the sum of these items.

Exception was filed to the petition on the ground that the damages having, as it is alleged, been inflicted November 3, 1908, more than two years and five months before the filing of the petition, the action is barred “by the prescription of one year from and after the day on which such damages were sustained, under the provisions of Articles 3536 and 3537 of the Civil Code of the State of Louisiana. Dismissal of the suit was prayed. The plea of prescription was sustained and the sole question pressed by counsel and which we are called upon to decide is the application of the state statute to the conceded cause of action. The court in passing upon the application of the statute of limitations said that plaintiff conceded that if the action was to be governed by the state statute it was prescribed, but he contended that it was an action for a penalty and governed by the prescription of five years, established by § 1047 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The court was of opinion that the action was for “remedial damages and not for a penalty,” and maintained the plea of prescription, citing Campbell v. Haverhill, 155 U. S. 610; Brady v. Daly, 175 U. S. 148, and dismissed the action with costs.

Judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed by the[*322] Circuit Court of Appeals. The court decided that the action was one for damages and not for a penalty and the limitations of five years against penalties or forfeitures (Rev. Stat., § 1Ó47) was not applicable. It followed, the court said, that the state statute, which prescribes the action in one year, must be applied, citing §§ 3536 and 3537 of the Civil Code of Louisiana. 194 Fed. Rep. 88.

The opinions of the lower courts exhibit the contentions in the case, and the short question presented is whether the action is for damages or for a penalty. If for a penalty, § 1047 of the Revised Statutes applies, which provides: “No suit or prosecution for any penalty or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, accruing under the laws of the United States, shall be maintained . . . unless the same is commenced within five years from the time when the penalty or forfeiture accrued.” If for damages, the provisions of the Louisiana Code are applicable. They are as follows: Article 3536. “The following actions are also prescribed by one year:

That for injurious words, whether verbal or written, and that for damages caused by animals, or resulting from offenses or quasi-offenses.”

And the prescription runs from the day the damage is sustained. Section 3537.

That the action depends upon or arises under the laws of the United States does not preclude the application of the statute of limitations of the State is established beyond controversy by cases cited by the Circuit Court and by McLaine v. Rankin, 197 U. S. 154, 158.

It is, therefore, not neeessary to pursue in detail the argument of plaintiff based on the postulate that “the Sovereign alone can limit the right of action,” and that because injury was inflicted on him in the course of violating Federal laws the limitation of the State could not apply. Congress, of course could have, by specific provision, prescribed a limitation, but no specific provision is ad[*323] duced. The limitation of five years is asserted on the ground that the.action is for a penalty, and that it is such is deduced from the provisions of Title XXIV of the Revised Statutes securing equal civil rights to all citizens.

These provisions secure to all citizens the same rights that white citizens enjoy and make every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory, deprives another of the rights secured, liable “to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” Section 1979.

It is also provided that if a conspiracy be entered into between two or more persons to deprive another of the equal protection of the lawsA or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, and the persons conspiring to or cause to be done any act in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having or exercising any right or privilege as a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. Section 1980.

Any one having knowledge of the wrongs conspired to be done and who, having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, shall be liable to the party injured or his legal representatives in an action on the case. Any number of defendants may be joined in the action. If the .death of any party be caused by such act or neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have an action therefor and may recover not exceeding 15,000 for- the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and, if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin. But no action under the provisions of the section can be sus[*324] tained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued. Section 1981.

Conspirators to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of his rights under the Constitution and laws of the United State's, or because of his having so exercised the same, shall be fined not more than $5,000 and imprisoned not more than ten years; and shall, moreover, be ineligible to office under the United States. Section 5508.

If in violating any of the provisions of the two preceding sections any felony or misdemeanor be committed, the offender shall be punished as provided in the state laws.

And every person who, under color of any law, etc., subjects or causes to be subjected any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of rights under the laws and Constitution of the United States shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Section 5510.

There are other criminal provisions not necessary to mention.

It will be observed, therefore, that the sections of the Revised Statutes, which we have quoted, provide criminal proceedings and punishment for the public wrong, and actions in law or equity for the redress of any private injury, with a limitation in one instance of the amount of recovery and of the time for commencing the action to one year.

The penal and remedial provisions are, therefore, distinct and cannot be confounded. The term “penalty” involves the idea of punishment for the infraction of the law, and is commonly used as including any extraordinary liability to which the law subjects a wrongdoer in favor of the person wronged, not limited to the damages suffered. United States v. Chouteau, 102 U. S. 603, 611; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 666, 667. There is no justification for the contention of plaintiff, therefore, that the[*325] remedy provided for a penalty and the limitation of time of bringing an action is five years under § 1047. It is very clear that the public wrong is punished by the fines and punishment prescribed, that the private injuries inflicted are to be redressed by civil suit, and the amount of recovery is determined by the extent of the injury received and the elements constituting it. This plaintiff indicates in his pleading, praying damages in the sum of $25,000 “for the wounding less than mayhem,” $25,000, “for the humiliation, degradation and public ridicule,” and $10,000 “as punitive and exemplary damages.”

Judgment affirmed.