Case Name: DETOURNION vs. DORMENON
Court: Superior Court of the Territory of Orleans
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1810
Citations: 1 Mart. (o.s.) 137
Docket Number: 
Parties: DETOURNION vs. DORMENON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Martin (Louisiana Term Reports)
Volume: 1
Pages: 137–139

Head Matter:
DETOURNION vs. DORMENON.
Fall, 1810.
Third District.
One disturbing a parish judge acting as sheriff; cannot be prosecuted for a contempt.
Dormenon, whilst Judge, and as such ex officio Sheriff, of the Parish of Pointe Coupée, conceiving himself insulted by Detournion, while he was engaged in selling, at auction, property which he had seized, upon an execution issued by himself, issued an attachment, and fined and imprisoned him for the contempt. Detournion having paid the fine and the costs of the prosecution, brought the present action to recover the moneys thus paid, with damages for the imprisonment.
Davezac for the plaintiff
Although the defendant, as Parish Judge, was ex officio Sheriff the two offices were distinct. An insult offered him while he was acting in the latter, could not be considered as a contempt of his authority in the former: consequently the money, which he has compelled the plaintiff to pay, has been illegally received, and he is bound to refund it.
Fromentin, for the defendant.
The defendant acted as Sheriff by virtue of his commission as Parish Judge. The two offices were inseparably united by law in his person, and derived from the same appointment and commission. An insult offered to him while he was discharging his duty as Sheriff was a contempt of his authority as a Judge; as much so, as if offered when he was sitting on the bench for the trial of a cause. Whether the behaviour of the plaintiff at the auction amounted to a contempt, is a question of which the defendant had the exclusive cognizance. The power to punish it, in this summary manner, was vested in Parish Judges, to enable them to support the dignity of the office. The exercise of it was a judicial act, and if, in doing it, the defendant misconceived his authority, the error was a judicial one, for which he is not liable to a suit.
Davezac, in reply. This Court being the supreme tribunal of the territory, has constitutionally a controlling power over all inferior Courts and magistrates. Whenever any of them err or act in a tyrannical or illegal manner, this Court has the power and is bound to correct the error and redress the injury.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Matthews, J. & Lewis, J.
The insult offered to the defendant, cannot be considered as a contempt of his judicial authority, which he had power to punish in this manner. This Court is bound to keep all inferior Courts and magistrates within the limits of their respective powers, and to punish wilful transgressions of them.
JuDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF-