Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-01-30
JUDICIAL LIABILITY.
JOHNSTON VERSUS xOORKAN.
A Case Of Importance Decided by the su-
prime Cear-Judaes and Their omeia'
Actiers.

A C,.e ef Importanee Decided by the Su'
,r,me Ccurs-Judses and Their 0n'eia
Actions.
The case of Johnston rs. Moorman,
on appeal from the Hastings Court ol
Danville. was yesterday decided by the
Court Of Appeals. Judge Richardson
delivering the opinion. The facts, as
certified, were fully set out and re-
viewed. II appears that in 1882 Moor
man brought an action of trcspass
against Johnston 10 recover damages
for false imprisonment. The case was
tried. and resulted in verdict and
Judgment for the plaintiff for the sum
of 1000, and thereupon the defendant
appealed. The main defence was based
on the ground that at the time OF the
alleged false imprisonment the defendant
was the mayor Of Danvil'e, and croft
cio Justice ard conservator of the
peace. and in the discharge of his off,
cial duty he ordered the arrest of the
plaintiff to preserve the peace and good
order of the town, and without any
malice or ill-will whatever against the
plaintiff.
At the trial the defendant requested
the Court to instruct the jury that
"every judicial officer is exempt from
liability in damages for his actions in
matters within his jurisdiction, even
though his judgment and actions based
thereon should prove to be erroneous. "
This instruction the Hastings Court re-
fused to give, and its refusal to do so
was held to be erroneous.
Ii canrot be doubted. said Judge
Richardson, that this instruction cor
rectly expounds the law. In his ad-
mirable work on Torts Judge Cooley
says:
Whenever the State confers judicial
powers upon an individual it cOnferS
them with full immunity from private
suits. In effect the State says to the
officer that these duties are con-
fded to his judgment; that he
is to exercise his judgment fully.
freely. and without favor. and he
NAV exercise it without fear; that the
duties concern individuals. but they
concern more especially the welfare o.
the State and the peace and happiness
of society; that if he shall fail in a
faithful discharge of them he shall be
called TO account as criminal ; but
that in order that he may not be an
royed, disturbed, and impeded in the
performance Of these high functions. a
dissatisfied individual shall not be
suffered to call in question hi,
official action in suit for dam
ages. This is what the State.
speaking by the mouth Of the com
mon law. says to the Judicial Of
fcer. The rule thus laid down apple-
no less to the highest Judge in the State
than to the lowest officer who sits a a
court and tries petty causes. -Coolcy
on TortS, 40S. et seq. And the same
author. after a review of the authori-
ties from the time Of Lord Coke to the
present. further says There are dicta
in some cases that justice is civilly re-
sponsible when he acts maliclously or
corruptly, but they are not well founded,
and the expressed decisions are against
them"
In Scott rs. Stanfcld. 3 i. r. Exch..
goo, judge Of county court was
sued for slander. He pleaded that the
words were spoken by him in his ca
pacity as Judge while trying a case
wherein the plaintiff was defendant
The plea was held good, the Chief Baron
saying; This doctrine has been aP-
piled not only to superior courts, but to
the court of coroner. and to court
martial. which is not court of record
1t is not for the protection or benefit o.
a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the
benefit Of the public, whose interest il
is that the judges should be at liberty
to exercise their functions with indie
pendence and without fear Of conSc
quences.
Iu Randall rs. Brigham, ! Wall,
s13, Mr.. Justice Field, delivering th'
opinion of the Supreme Court Of the
United States. says: 1T Is genera
principle, applicable to all judicial Of
iicers. that they are not liable to clyl
action for any judicial act done within
their jurisdiction. And the same
learned Judge. in delivering the opinion
in the later case of Bradley rs. Fisher
l3Wall.. 335, says I'VE have locke
into the authorities, and We learn from
them. as we'll as from the principles or
which any exemption is maintained
that the Judges of courts of superior o
general jurisdiction are not liable II
civil actions for their judicial acts. ever
when such acts are III excess OF thell
jurisdiction. and are alleged to hay
been done maliciously or corruptly."
In Stone rs. Graves, 40 Amer. Dec.
13l, it was held that justice of tn
peace was not liable in civil action
when acting iudicially and within tn
sphere of his jurisdiction, howeve
erroneous his decision or malicious hi
motive. See also Gates Is. Lansing,
Amer. Dec. 303; Ramis rs. Simpson
80 Texas, 495 80 Amer. Rep. COS
where is adopted the language o
Beardsly, j.. in Weaver rs. Drumdoif.
DEMO, III, that the rule eXemptin
Judges and other officers from liabillt
in civil suit for judicial determine
tion. however erroneous or corrupt. cN
tends to all public officers, from tn
highest to the lowest.
That Johnston, the defendant in tn
present suit. was Judicial officer ther
can be no question. He was mayo
and er-c@eio justice Of the peace, an
in Virginia, with very few exception,
the functions of justice of the peac
are judicial in their character.-l Minor
Insts., los. When a justice consider
a case upon the evidence and the law
however the case is presented to hin
whether formally or informally, whethC
the case be civil or criminal, and wh'
ther he decides upon the testimony
.N.sWaa