O'Connell v. Mason
| Decision Date | 25 August 1904 |
| Docket Number | 519. |
| Citation | 132 F. 245 |
| Parties | O'CONNELL v. MASON et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Bernard D. O'Connell, pro se.
Herbert Parker, Atty. Gen. of Massachusetts, Frederick H. Nash, Asst Atty. Gen., of Massachusetts, Lewis S. Dabney, Walter I Badger, Charles W. Bartlett, Samuel J. Elder, and Marquis F Dickinson, for defendants in error.
Before COLT, Circuit Judge, and ALDRICH and BROWN, District Judges.
The rule of law which holds that judges of courts of general jurisdiction shall only be subject to civil actions by private suitors in certain exceptional cases-- as, for instance, where the acts complained of are clearly outside the jurisdiction of the court in which the judge presides-- is very old and well understood. It is by no means and in no sense a rule of nonliability of modern enunciation or invention. The rule is founded upon a public policy which demands an independent judiciary, the leading idea being not so much protection to the judges or the courts as protection to the public in the right of an independent administration of justice.
Generally speaking, the remedy against an oppressive judiciary is a public remedy, which resides with the people at large, to be used by their authorized and responsible agents and representatives. We do not deem it at all necessary to elaborate or discuss a rule which has for a long time been familiar to the legal profession and to an intelligent and justly discriminating public, both in this country and England.
The questions involved in this case received very careful and painstaking consideration by the learned judge who presided in the Circuit Court, and we fully agree with the result there reached.
The only allegations in the declaration in question which tend to bring the case within the exception to the general rule of nonliability are the paragraphs which allege that the acts complained of were not judicial acts under the circumstances and were done without authority or jurisdiction. Such general allegations are not sufficient to control the question whether a case shall proceed to trial, or, on the other hand, be dismissed upon the ground that the declaration states no cause of action, and the proceeding is therefore frivolous. Rules of pleading require the particular acts complained of to be set forth. This the plaintiff does in this case, and in his general and concluding allegation says, 'Said acts were not judicial acts,' etc. An examination of the particular allegations show that all the acts relate to official doings and judicial functions exercised with reference to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Telectron, Inc.
...Thus, in defining the purpose of Section 1915(d), the First Circuit Court of Appeals in the oft-cited case of O'Connell v. Mason, 132 F. 245, 247 (1st Cir. 1904), stressed the responsibility of courts to ensure a reasonable, good faith use of the in forma pauperis "It is quite clear that Co......
-
Weller v. Dickson
...of the statute to abuse the process of the court by prosecuting suits which are frivolous or malicious." (Id. at 224) O'Connell v. Mason, 1 Cir., 1904, 132 F. 245, was an action against a judge for damages resulting from judicial action. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis was denied. The co......
-
Horsey v. Asher
...222 F.2d 222, 224 (4th Cir.1955). The purpose underlying 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) was eloquently stated by Judge Aldrich in O'Connell v. Mason, 132 F. 245 (1st Cir.1904): It is quite clear that Congress, while intending to extend to poor and meritorious suitors the privilege of having their wron......
-
Cain v. Com. of Virginia
...of harassing those with whom they were not in accord, by subjecting them to vexatious and frivolous legal proceedings. O'Connell v. Mason, 132 F. 245, 247 (1st Cir.1904). Thus, the courts are charged with dismissing an action proceeding in forma pauperis at any time during the course of the......