Early v. Fitzpatrick
| Decision Date | 12 May 1909 |
| Citation | 49 So. 686,161 Ala. 171 |
| Parties | EARLY v. FITZPATRICK ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Bessemer; William Jackson, Judge.
Action by O. S. Early against M. H. Fitzpatrick and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Pinkney Scott, for appellant.
Ben G. Perry and Joel F. Webb, for appellees.
This action was brought by the appellant against the appellee, M. H. Fitzpatrick, a justice of the peace, and the sureties on his bond, claiming damages resulting from a fine for contempt of court imposed upon the plaintiff by said justice of the peace and the imprisonment consequent on plaintiff's failure to pay the same. The various counts of the complaint were demurred to, and the demurrers were sustained, and judgment was rendered against the plaintiff for costs.
The allegations of the complaint show that the justice of the peace was acting judicially in fining and imprisoning the plaintiff for contempt. It is too well settled in this state to need extended argument that a justice of the peace, like other judicial officers, has jurisdiction to punish for contempt; also that no judicial officer can be held liable, in an action for damages, on account of his judicial actions. If his action is erroneous, or even corrupt, other remedies must be pursued. The integrity of the judiciary demands that the threat of personal liability shall not be held over them in the discharge of their judicial functions.
The cases referred to by the appellant have been sufficiently differentiated by the previous decisions of this court. Coleman et al. v. Roberts, 113 Ala. 323, 21 So. 449, 36 L. R. A. 84, 59 Am. St. Rep. 111; Burgin v. Sullivan et al., 151 Ala. 416, 44 So. 202; Scott v. Ryan et al., 115 Ala. 587, 22 So. 284. In the case of Crosthwait v. Pitts et al., 139 Ala. 421, 424, 36 So. 83, the decision is placed distinctly on the ground that the justice "had not acquired jurisdiction of the person whose acknowledgment was falsely certified," and could, therefore, claim no immunity from responsibility for his act, on the ground that it was judicial.
The judgment of the court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Tip-Pa-Hans Enterprises, Inc.
...judicial officers in the discharge of their functions. The people in their Constitution mandated that their courts be so. Early v. Fitzpatrick, 161 Ala. 171, 49 So. 686; Williamson v. Lacy, 86 Me. 80, 29 A. 943; Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62, 54 N.W. It is the principle lying at the foundati......
-
Pickett v. Richardson
... ... v. Stewart, 63 Ala. 206, 215, false arrest; Heard v ... Harris, 68 Ala. 43, false imprisonment; Early v ... Fitzpatrick, 161 Ala. 171, 49 So. 686, 135 Am. St. Rep ... 123, for punishing for contempt; Lacey v. Hendricks, ... 164 Ala. 280, 51 So ... ...
-
McGlasker v. Calton
...and was actuated by malicious motives and the prisoner was released by habeas corpus proceedings or otherwise. Early v. Fitzpatrick, 161 Ala. 171, 49 So. 686. It has been held, however, that, if the committing officer is without jurisdiction in the proceeding in which the order of commitmen......
-
Moser v. Summers
... ... 698, 174 S.W. 490, and ... Rammage v. Kendall, 168 Ky. 26, 181 S.W. 631, L.R.A ... 1916C, 1295. To the same effect, see, also, Early v ... Fitzpatrick, 161 Ala. 171, 49 So. 686, 135 Am.St.Rep ... 123; Scott v. Fishblate, 117 N.C. 265, 23 S.E. 436, ... 30 L.R.A. 696; Gordon v ... ...