Case v. Bush

• Decision Date: 11 June 1919
• Citation: 93 Conn. 550,106 A. 822
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CASE v. BUSH.

106 A. 822

93 Conn. 550

CASE v. BUSH.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 11, 1919

Appeal from Superior Court, New London County; John E. Keeler Judge.

Action by Olivia Case against Austin J. Bush for damages for alleged usurpation of authority by defendant in his capacity as Probate Judge. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The complaint alleges that Clara M. Root died intestate in 1913 leaving certain real estate; that the defendant, as judge of probate, appointed administrators on her estate, which was finally settled, and the real estate in question distributed to the plaintiff on October 21, 1914. On October 21, 1915, the defendant made a decree revoking and setting aside the letters of administration before granted vacating and striking from the records the final account of the former administrators, and requiring the plaintiff to account for the rents and profits of the real estate. This was done in a proceeding instituted under section 4956, G S., by the executors of a will which had been probated in New York as the will of Clara M. Root, and by which the real estate in question was devised to the executrix of the New York will, praying that an exemplified copy of the will and probate be recorded in the probate court for the district of Bozrah, that the letters of administration already granted be revoked, and that ancillary administration be granted to the petitioner.

It is alleged that the defendant had no jurisdiction to pass the orders in question, that he acted maliciously and corruptly and that the plaintiff was specially damaged thereby in that she was compelled at considerable expense to appeal to the superior court, which adjudged that the decrees in question were null and void, and also because she was compelled to safeguard the premises from occupation by the agents of the New York executrix.

The defendant's answer denied that Clara M. Root died intestate, denied corruption and malice, alleged that defendant had no knowledge or information as to the special damage alleged, and admitted all the other allegations of the complaint.

Frank L. McGuire, of New London, for appellant.

Arthur M. Brown and Charles V. James, both of Norwich, for appellee.

BEACH J.

Plaintiff relies on the rule that the judge of an inferior court is personally liable for the injuries consequent on a judgment given in a cause over which he had no jurisdiction. The rule is formulated in Prince v. Thomas, 11 Conn. 472, as follows:

" If a warrant issues from a magistrate or officer of special and limited powers, who has not jurisdiction of the person, subject-matter, and process, all who are voluntarily and actively concerned in its procurement and execution are trespassers."

This rule has been applied in a number of cases in which void process was issued by a justice of the peace, grand juror, or military officer. Burlingham v. Wylee, 2 Root, 152; Grumon v. Raymond, 1 Conn. 40, 6 Am.Dec. 200; Tracy v. Williams, 4 Conn. 107, 10 Am.Dec. 102; Hall v. Howd, 10 Conn. 514, 27 Am.Dec. 696; Allen v. Gray, 11 Conn. 95; Dyer v. Smith, 12 Conn. 384; Mallory v. Merritt, 17 Conn. 178; Church v. Pearne, 75 Conn. 350, 53 A. 955.

On the other hand, " a judge or justice is never answerable in a civil suit for a judgment rendered by him, in his judicial capacity, however erroneous, provided he had jurisdiction" (Holcomb v. Cornish, 8 Conn. 375-381), or, as was said in McVeigh v. Ripley, 77 Conn. 136, 139, 58 A. 701, provided " he had jurisdiction over the person, the process, and the subject-matter." In this case the jurisdiction over the parties and process turns on the question whether the defendant had jurisdiction over the subject-matter.

" Jurisdiction of the subject-matter is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong." 15 C.J. 734; 4 Words and Phrases, 3886, 3887, and many cases cited.

The Supreme Court of the United States defines jurisdiction as:

" The right to adjudicate concerning the subject-matter in the given case. To constitute this there are three essentials: first, the court must have cognizance of the class of cases to which the one to be adjudged belongs; second, the proper parties must be present; and, third, the point decided must be, in substance and effect, within the issue." Reynolds v.

...