Murray v. Mills

• Citation: 56 Minn. 75,57 N.W. 324
• Parties: MURRAY v. MILLS.
• Decision Date: 02 January 1894
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

56 Minn. 75

57 N.W. 324

MURRAY

v.MILLS.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 2, 1894.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A purported judgment of a justice of the peace, which, upon its face, appears to have been rendered and docketed after the expiration of the period of time fixed by Gen. St. 1878, c. 65, § 68, within which a justice must render and enter judgment, is absolutely void, and such justice will not be liable in a civil action for damages because of such rendition and entry, no further proceedings on his part being shown.

Appeal from municipal court of Minneapolis; Elliott, Judge.

Action by William B. Murray against W. H. Mills. From an order of judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Charles E. Bond, for appellant.

C. E. Brame, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

From the allegations of the complaint herein it appears that this defendant was a justice of the peace, before whom an action was brought by one Smith against the present plaintiff, Murray. A trial was had, and the cause submitted for determination on October 14, 1892. The justice rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff in that action, for costs. The basis of plaintiff's cause of action herein is that the justice “did not render, enter, and docket” the judgment until October 18th,-four days after the case was submitted to him,-and because of this plaintiff seeks to recover of the justice, as damages, the amount of certain costs which he alleges he was obliged to pay in district court on an appeal by Smith on questions of law alone. The judgment against him was reversed by the district court on the ground, it is alleged, that by failing to render and docket a judgment within three days, as required by Gen. St. 1878, c. 65, § 68, the justice lost jurisdiction in the case, and therefore had no power to act at all on October 18th.

It is hardly necessary to say that a judicial officer cannot be called to account in a civil action for his acts and decisions in his judicial capacity, however erroneous, or by whatever motives prompted. The rule and the reasons therefor were recently stated by this court in Stewart v. Case, (Minn.) 54 N. W. 938. Or, to put it in different language, the rule is that a person is not liable in a civil action for what he does, or fails to do, as a judicial officer. Appellant's counsel does not question this general doctrine, nor does he claim that it does not apply to a justice of the peace in this state, but he...