Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-02-15

administrators had made final settle
ment and had collected all that was due
said estate in Confederate funds and said
administrators asked permission to pay
over said funds in their hands to the
clerk of the County Court, it is therefore
ordered by the court that said
administrators pay over said
| funds to the clerk as aforesaid and
take his receipt for the same. 1t is there
| fore ordered by the Court that the clerk
is not liable for any interest on said
funds, except he can loan the same: and
it is further ordered that in the event
said Confederate funds should become
deprecated, it is ordered by the Court
that said clerk is not in any way liable
for the same.n
The defendants, William Ramsey and
Elias Green, were of the Quorum Court,
and were presiding at the time of the rem
that all the parties defendant combined
and confederated together to cheat and
defraud said minor in this and the various
other transactions complained of. There
is no proof that tends to throw suspicion
on these two defendants. They answer
and repel the charges against them, and
assert that they had no other motive in
making said order than to do what SEEM
ed, upon their best judgment, to be their
duty as a court.
| A demurrer is incorporated in the an
sWer, assigning IS causes of demurrer:
l. That it appears from the charges made
against defendants that the acts COM
planned of and for which it is attempted
to hold them responsible, were done by
respondent in judicial capacity as the
Quorum Court of the county of Warren.
2. 1t is nowhere charged in said bill that
respondents, in their judicial capacity,
acted fraudulently or maliciously towards
Washington Perkins, nor is there any
charge, matter or thing stated in said bill
upon which 10 ground a prayer for relief
against them.
8. The bill shows that James Cope is
the regular guardian of Washington Per-
kins. 1t may be stated that the bill
charges some of the other parties defend
ant with certain alleged fraudulent trans
actions, with specifications thereof, and
concludes with the general sweeping
charge that all the defendants combined
and confedeIated together to cheat and
defraud the said Washington, but it does
not connect these defendants with said
transactions, and only complains of them
in regard to their action as court, which
the bill does not charge to have been cor
rupt, malicious or for any fraudulent or
dishonest purpose.
1t is familiar principle of the com
mon law that while acting within the
sphere of his jurisdiction, judge is not
to be held responsible for any errors of
judgment or mistake he may commit as
judge. Co Lit. 294; Johns 282. The
statement of the principle in the ancient
authorities that the judge is thus excul-
pated while acting "within the bounds of
his jurisdiction" would seem to import
his personal accountability for an error
jurisdiction. This cannot be the in
tention of the law. Judge Green
states the principle more guardedly,
that Judicial officer is not responsible
for mere errors of judgment in a case
of which he has Jurisdiction, and in
which without malice he honestly pro
nounces what he believes to be the judg-
ment of the law. Hoggatt vs.. Bigley ct.
ais, Humph. 239. We can conceive of
many cases, and indeed they are of fire.
quent occurrence where judicial officer
pronounces an erroneous judgment from
an honest sense of right, but upon a mis-
taken opinion Of his jurisdiction of the
person or the subject matter. The law
has provided the most ample remedies
both for the prevention and correction of
such errors. And we apprehend the true
sense of the doctrine to be that judicial
officer is personally responsible to the in
jured party only for the errors commit
ted in the arbitrary, corrupt and mali
cious exercise of an assumed judicial au-
thority without regard to the question of
his Jurisdiction
1t is general principle that an error or
irregularity in judicial proceeding can
not be attacked collaterslly IN any other
suit than that in which the irregularity
occurs, or on appeal or process in error
therefrom, Cooley's Com. Linn, 400.
The exception to this rule embraces the
vast number of cases in which the juris-
diction is conferred upon court of
equity to correct and annul the judgments of
a court of law upon grounds peculiarly
cOgnizable in court of equity. Among
them is the corrupt, fraudulent and ma
licious exercise of judicial power, Wheth-
er the corrupt motives are patent at the |
moment of such judicial action or come |
to light afterwards. If it be simple er-
ror of an honest Judgment then the rem
o1vy 10 60 ha of l
rOrs; but if it be an error fraudulent, cor
rupt, malicious and injurious, then the |
proper forum is the Court of Equity, |
with its ample remedial powers, not only |
to check the wrong but to vindicate and |
succOr the right.
The defendants were of the Justices of |
the county of Warren who constitute a
judicial tribunal known to our law as the /
Quorum County Court, in which was
vested by law the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of matters of administration |
and the settlement of the accounts there
of. If in the rendition of the order
complained of they have done the COM
plainants wrong by an honest error of
judgment, they are not responsible for it
pecuniarily or otherwise. But if they
have acted corruptly, maliciously and
with purpose to defraud the complainant
of his rights, then, in an appropriate
proceeding, they are responsible. The
bill does not make out such a case. 1t
does not impute to these Justices any
corrupt or dishonest motive touching
this Judicial act, and it is therefore de,
murrable
The decree of the Chancellor is af
firmed, and the bill as to these defendants
will be dismissed. SNEED, Judge.