Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-07-13
Opinion of the Court .

The Western railroad company of Minnesota,
appelent VS.. Charles A. De Graft and William
Crooks, surviving partners of the late firm of
De Graft & Co.. Charles A. F. Morris, Nathan
Myrick and Russell Blakely and Cepheus W.
Carpenter comprising the firm of Blakely &
CARPENTER, and Johns Pillsbury, governor OF
the State of Minnesota respondents.
Whether under our conatitution any officer
of the executive department of the State gov
eminent can be subject to Judicial control and
interference in the performance of an official
duty is question which has been before thil
court in different forms and at different times
for consideration and decision, and the holding
has uniformly been against the existence OF
any such Jurisdiction or power in the courts.
In re- the application of the senate, ETC., 1C
Mimi, 70.
Rice. ct al VS.. Austin, 10 Mimi, l04.
The State ex rel. county treasurer of Mile
Laos county We. Dixie, State treasurer, and
same ex rel. Wright VS.. JepnisoA, secretary OF
State, 20 Mimi. 1858.
st. p. & G. r. Co. VS.. Brown ct al, "a
Mimi, SIT, 573 and SD.
The reasons for the holding are fully stated
in Rice vs.. Austin, and county treasurer OF
Mile Laos county VS.. Dixie, supra, and need
not be reetated here. It rests upon the cOnsti-
tutionsl principle that each of these depai t.
ments of government is entirely independent
of the others, 30 that neither can be made
smenable to any other for its action or judy
ment in disoharging the duties imposed upon
it, whatever their source or nature.
The principle applies to the performance of
all official duties, whether imposed by tie CON-
stitution or by legislative enactment simply,
or whether they are of q character strictly
ministerial, or such as call for the exercise of
discretion and judgment alone.
It follows that every act done or attempted
to be done by any officer Of the executive de-
partment in his official, ale
not. in his individual capacity,
is shielded from all judicial inter
ference or control, either by mandamus or in
junction, even though such act may be founded
in an error of judgment, or an entire misap-
prehens:on of official duty under the law.
The acts complained of and sought to be en-
Joined in this action ere clearly acts which the
defendant, Pillsbury, is threatening to do 10
bis official capacity as the governor of the
State, and not as IN individual. The court,
therefore, as against him can take no cogni-
zance of this action, nor graut the pEevLntial
relief prayed for by the plaintiff.
If the action is dismissed. as it must be
against this defendant for want of any juris-
diction over the governor, whether it can still
be maintained against the other defendants,
who are the respondents herein, is the only
qGestion remaining for consideration and de-
cision. To sustain it against them
alone it must appear that
they have such an interest in the subject mat
ter of the action as makes them liable to the
plaintiff in respect to the demand which con-
stitutes the ground work of the complaint.
Story Egg. Pledgs, sections 503, 513, $40, 731
and f.
No cause of action lie stated against the re-
spsndents alone. For its foundation, the ac-