By its own terms the statute does not place a one-year limitation on all actions against a sheriff, but only on those based on acts (or omissions) for which he may be liable and which he has performed in his official capacity. In the leading case of Ingo v. Koch, 127 F.2d 667, 671 (2d Cir. 1942), this Court stated: [T]he result is that we have a sort of heaven-purgatory-hell classification: (1) Conduct which is lawful and not actionable, because entirely within the sheriff's official authority.

See note 32 supra. Compare Ingo v. Koch, 127 F.2d 667, 670 n. 3 (2d Cir. 1942). Compare Ingo v. Koch, supra note 44, 127 F.2d at 670 n. 3; Niven v. Boland, supra note 36, 58 N.E. at 282-283; Mezullo v. Maletz, supra note 36, 118 N.E.2d at 358; Ussery v. Haynes, 344 Mo. 530, 127 S.W.2d 410, 417 (1939).

The most instructive decision on point is an early opinion by Judge Frank of the Court of Appeals for this circuit discussing § 51 of the New York Civil Practice Act, the predecessor to N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 215(1), and identical in all respects to the present statute. See Ingo v. Koch, 127 F.2d 667 (2d Cir. 1942).

[E]nforcement of the state's orders requires that its officers be protected from excessive harassment so that they will not be paralyzed by fear in discharge of their functions; the enactment of such legislation as the short statute — the equivalent of which is found in many jurisdictions — was doubtless inspired by a policy of that sort.Ingo v. Koch, 127 F.2d 667, 671 (2nd Cir. 1942). The court in Dixon, notes that the 1829 statute shortening the period for suits against sheriffs to three years was, according to the report of the revisors to the legislature in 1829, "proposed in order to relieve the sureties of sheriffs."

The complaint, in fact, alleges that Crichlow's actions were "under pretense and color of law and [in] his official capacity". It has been held that "[t]he liability to which this short limitation period [CPLR 215 (1)] applies is coextensive with the liability against which a Sheriff must be bonded" (Adams v County of Rensselaer, 66 N.Y.2d 725, 727, citing Taylor v Mayone, 626 F.2d 247; Regan v. Sullivan, 557 F.2d 300, 305, n 2; Ingo v. Koch, 127 F.2d 667; Dixon v. Seymour, 62 A.D.2d 444). CCA 1604 (a) requires that all City Marshals execute a bond providing that the Marshal and two sureties "shall jointly and severally answer to * * * any persons that may complain, for the true and faithful execution by such marshal of the duties of his office".

As such, it is entitled to very little weight. See Ingo v. Koch, 127 F.2d 667, 677 (2d Cir. 1942). For subsequent history of the Callaway case see 431 F. Supp. 722 (1977) and 459 F. Supp. 188 (1978).

The purpose of the short statute for claims against sheriff's was to protect the sureties on the sheriff's bond, required by N.Y. County Law § 403 and N.Y. Public Officers Law § 11. See Ingo v. Koch, 127 F.2d 667, 672-73 (2d Cir. 1942); Morris v. Van Voast, 19 N.Y. 283 (1838). Prior to 1962, a vacancy in the office of sheriff was, in the absence of an undersheriff, to be filled by a coroner of the county, who was similarly required to file a bond.

Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 65, 88 S.Ct. 1549, 20 L.Ed.2d 426 (1968); Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332, 336, 88 S.Ct. 548 19 L.Ed.2d 564 (1967); National Automatic Laundry Cleaning Council v. Shultz, 143 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 291-292, 443 F.2d 689, 706-707 (1971); Jordan v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co., 133 U.S.App.D.C. 224, 228, 409 F.2d 1141, 1145, cert. denied, 395 U.S. 959, 89 S.Ct. 2101, 23 L.Ed.2d 746 (1969). United States v. Zacks, 375 U.S. 59, 68, 84 S.Ct. 178, 11 L.Ed.2d 128 (1963); Anderson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co., 225 U.S. 187, 198-199, 32 S.Ct. 626, 56 L.Ed. 1047 (1912); Ingo v. Koch, 127 F.2d 667, 668 (2d Cir. 1942); Ruth v. Eagle-Picher Co., 225 F.2d 572, 575 (10th Cir. 1955). IV. THE AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS TRADE ACT

Holmes, Privilege, Malice and Intent, 8 Harv.L.Rev. 1 (1894) reprinted in Holmes, Collected Legal Papers (1920) 117, 120-121; Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92, 104, 44 N.E. 1077, 1079, 1081, 35 L.R.A., N.S., 722, 57 Am.St.Rep. 443; see Restatement of Torts, § 708. Tuttle v. Buck, 107 Minn. 145, 119 N.W. 946, 22 L.R.A., N.S., 599, 131 Am. St.Rep. 446, 16 Ann.Cas. 807; Restatement of Torts, § 709; Cf. Ingo v. Koch, 2 Cir., 127 F.2d 667, 672, note 7 and cases there cited. Yet, in intervening in the "unfair competition" cases, the courts at first seemed to have directed their attention primarily to the adverse effects of unethical business activities on business competitors and to have paid relatively little heed to the interest of consumers. For it does not follow that because conduct is unfair to a business rival it will harm consumers: By practices which are unethical when viewed from the angle of his competitors, a businessman is frequently able to undersell them; the resultant lowered prices case the strain on his customers' pocketbooks fully as much as if he had acted "fairly."

Restatement of Torts, § 700; Tuttle v. Buck, 107 Minn. 145, 119 N.W. 946, 22 L.R.A., N.S., 599, 131 Am.St.Rep. 446, 16 Ann.Cas. 807; Eastern Wine Corp. v. Winslow-Warren, Ltd., supra. N.L.R.B. v. Columbia Products Corp., 2 Cir., 1944, 141 F.2d 687; cf. Ingo v. Koch, 2 Cir., 127 F.2d 667, 672, and notes 7, 8 and 9. The lower court did not reach its decision by distinguishing the instant case from the Story Parchment case, but, in its opinion, said that in such a suit the plaintiff's allegations that defendants' violation of the Sherman Act was "the proximate cause" of the damages to the plaintiff "are jurisdictional," and that, "for that reason, legal conclusions are insufficient and facts must be pleaded with definiteness and particularity."