Home Ins. Co. of St. Paul v. Flint

• Decision Date: 01 January 1868
• Parties: HOME INSURANCE COMPANY OF ST. PAUL v. SAMUEL M. FLINT.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 228

13 Minn. 228

HOME INSURANCE COMPANY OF ST. PAUL

v. SAMUEL M. FLINT.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Application for a writ of prohibition absolute to restrain the respondent, who is county attorney of the county of Ramsey, from making the examination required by the act of March 9, 1867, into the financial condition of the relator, an insurance company organized within this state and situate in said county.

E. C. Palmer, for plaintiff.

S. M. Flint and L. E. Thompson, for defendant.

WILSON, C. J.

At common law it seems to be the office of a writ of prohibition to prevent courts from going beyond their jurisdiction.

The writ is issued to the court and prosecuting party, commanding the former not to entertain, and the latter not to prosecute, the action or proceeding.

It is seldom if ever granted to restrain the proceedings of other bodies or officers. But whether it is ever issued to another body or officer or not, it is clear that it is only issued to restrain the exercise of judicial powers. 2 Seld. Pr. 308; 2 Burrill, Pr. 182; 3 Bl. Comm. 111, 113; People v. Supervisors, 1 Hill, 195; In matter of Mount Morris Square, 2 Hill. 28; Ex parte Braudlacht, 2 Hill, 367; Washburn v. Phillips, 2 Metc. 298-9.

Our statute confirms the use of the writ, but has not in respect to the proceedings sought to be restrained by it changed the common law; nor does it purport to limit, extend, or determine the cases in which the writ will lie.

If, therefore, the acts of the defendant complained of are not judicial, they cannot be restrained by this writ. The statute of 1867 requires the county attorney "to examine into the financial condition of such company, and if in his opinion such company does not possess the amount of capital or assets on hand according to the requirements of the law, or in other material things is not complying with the law, he shall so certify to the state treasurer."

The compliance with this law is the act threatened and sought to be restrained. If the word is used in the ordinary and legal acceptation, clearly there is nothing judicial in the making of the examination and certificate required. The word "judicial" is defined: (1) Pertaining to courts of justice, as judicial powers; (2) practiced in the distribution of justice, as judicial proceedings; (3) proceeding from a court of justice, as a judicial determination. Webst. Dic. Bouvier defines it, "belonging to and emanating from a judge as such." "Judicial power" he defines, "the authority vested in the judges."

A judicial investigation proceeds after notice, and eventuates in a judgment, which is the final determination of the rights of the parties unless reversed by an appellate tribunal. The necessity of notice in the inception, and the conclusive character of the determination, are perhaps as good a test as any other as to what proceedings are judicial. In this case it cannot be pretended that notice is required, or that the determination or certificate would be conclusive in collateral proceedings.

Ministerial officers are not unfrequently required to perform acts which involve to some extent the exercise of...