Case Name: Johnson v. Stanley, three Selectmen and two Johnsons
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1791-01
Citations: 1 Root 245
Docket Number: 
Parties: Johnson v. Stanley, three Selectmen and two Johnsons.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 245–246

Head Matter:
Johnson v. Stanley, three Selectmen and two Johnsons.
Selectmen wlio appoint an overseer, over a man in an illegal and oppressive manner are to respond in damages to the party injured.
Action for wrongfully and illegally appointing an overseer over the plaintiff, without any just or legal cause, on purpose to injure him, etc. Plea, severally not guilty. Issue to the court.
Upon the evidence it appeared — That the plaintiff was capable of managing his affairs, and was industrious; that he had got into an unhappy dispute with some of the defendants; from whence arose a number of law suits, in some of which he was plaintiff, in some he was defendant: That the selectmen were too much influenced by the parties who were against the plaintiff, to take this step; from which in about three weeks they released him.
The law is — That the selectmen shall inspect, etc. and if they find any of their inhabitants reduced or likely to be reduced to want, by idleness, mismanagement or bad husbandry they may appoint an overseer, etc.
This is an authority to the selectmen, to be exercised in certain cases, against the general rights and liberties of the citizens, it must therefore, be cautiously and strictly pursued. The appointment in this case is, that upon complaint made, that Hezekiah Johnson is likely to be reduced, by law suits and mismanagement; we do appoint Isaac Hall his overseer, etc.— not that upon inspection we find, etc. nor, that upon his being cited before a justice, it is found, etc. So that the writing states no legal grounds for the measure, and none being proved upon the trial to have existed, the court was of opinion that the defendants were guilty, except Esq. Stanley, who was found not guilty; and £15 damages.

Opinion:
Adams and Wolcott, JJ.,
were for excusing the selectmen, upon the ground that they acted in a judicial capacity; but the court could not see.reason sufficient to excuse them on that ground.