Pruitt v. Turner

• Decision Date: 12 May 1960
• Docket Number: No. 3759,3759
• Citation: 336 S.W.2d 440
• Parties: Donald Wayne PRUITT, Appellant, v. Clinton W. TURNER et al., Appellees.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 440

336 S.W.2d 440

Donald Wayne PRUITT, Appellant, v. Clinton W. TURNER et al., Appellees.

No. 3759.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Waco.

May 12, 1960.

Rehearing Denied June 23, 1960.

Harry W. Flentge, Gatesville, for appellant.

Byron L. McClellan, Gatesville, Beard, Kultgen & Beard, Waco, for appellees.

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff Pruitt filed this suit for damages in the amount of $975 against defendant Turner (and his bondsman, Southwestern Indemnity Company), in the County Court of Coryell County. Defendant Turner is Justice of the Peace of Precinct 2 of Coryell County. Plaintiff Pruitt was charged with a misdemeanor criminal offense in such court. He entered a plea of not guilty and demanded a trial by jury. Defendant Turner denied Pruitt a jury unless he paid a jury fee in the amount of $3. Defendant Justice of the Peace Turner thereafter called the case for trial, and tried and convicted Pruitt without a jury. Plaintiff Pruitt alleges that the Constitution and Statutes of Texas guarantee for him a jury in such instance, without payment of a jury fee, and that the provision of same by the Justice of the Peace was a ministerial duty, for breach of which he is liable for plaintiff's resulting damages.

The Trial Court sustained an exception to plaintiff's cause of action (which amounted to a general demurrer); plaintiff refused to amend, and the Trial Court dismissed the cause.

Plaintiff appeals, alleging a violation by defendant of a legal right and damage; and prays that the judgment of the Trial Court be reversed, and the cause be remanded for trial.

The issue presented is whether a Justice of the Peace is immune to damages in tort for denying a defendant who pleads not guilty, a jury trial without the defendant posting a jury fee. Art. 1, Sec. 10 of the Constitution of Texas, Vernon's Ann.St., provides:

'Rights of accused in criminal prosecution Sec. 10. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury.'

Article 892, Code of Criminal Procedure (Trial in Justice Court) provides:

'If the accused does not waive a trial by jury, the justice shall issue a writ commanding the proper officer to summon forthwith a jury of six men qualified to serve as jurors.'

Article 1059, Code of Criminal Procedure, provides:

'The amount due jurors and bailiffs shall be paid by the county treasurer, upon the certificate of the proper clerk or the justice of the peace, stating the service, when and by whom rendered, and the amount due therefor.'

From the foregoing, there can be no question but that Pruitt was entitled to a jury without depositing a jury fee; and that the Justice of the Peace was not justified in refusing to summon a jury to determine his case.

The record reflects that the foregoing provisions of our Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure were affirmatively brought to the attention of the Justice of the Peace. We think their provisions are so clear that any person should understand their meaning from a reading thereof.

We revert to the issue for determination: Under the facts, is the Justice of the Peace and his bondsman subject to civil liability for denying a jury to a defendant who pleads not guilty and demands a jury trial.

25 Tex.Jur., pp. 254, 255 states the rule thusly:

'Under the broad principles applicable to public officers generally, a judge is not civilly liable for acts performed in the exercise of his judicial functions, even though they were wilful or malicious. * * *

'The doctrine of judicial immunity does not, however, apply with respect to acts done in a purely ministerial capacity; as to such acts a judge stands in the same position as any other person.'

26 Tex.Jur. pp. 800, 801, in discussing the civil liability of a justice of the peace, says:

'The rule that a judge is not civilly liable for anything done by him in the exercise of his judicial functions * * * gives absolute immunity to a justice of the peace acting in his judicial capacity and within his jurisdiction. * * *

'Acts by a judicial officer in a ministerial capacity are on a different footing; as to such, it is no defense that the justice acted in good faith and in intended fulfillment of his official duty. The distinction between judicial and ministerial acts depends on whether a discretion has been conferred.'

In the early case of Bumpus v. Fisher, 21 Tex. 561, 567, our Supreme Court in discussing the liability of a judge says:

'While acting within the line of their authority, they are protected as to errors of judgment, otherwise they are not protected. In all the cases, where protection is given to the judge, giving an erroneous judgment, he must be acting as judge.'

Our Supreme Court in Rains v. Simpson, 50 Tex. 495, after laying down the rule that judicial officers are not liable to personal action for official acts within their jurisdiction; limits the immunity to judicial actions and makes an exception of ministerial actions. Such case holds:

'The application of the principle of immunity from private suit has been a source of difficulty, the practical solution of which depends upon whether the given act was ministerial or judicial. As a general rule, in the former case the action will, and in the latter it will not, be sustained.

'The distinction between the two is thus defined: 'Where the law prescribes and defines the duties to be performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment, the act is ministerial; but where the act to be done involves the exercise of discretion or judgment, it is not to be deemed merely ministerial."

The foregoing definition of and distinction between judicial acts and ministerial acts is quoted and adopted in Jarnagin v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 69 S.W.2d 511, W/E Ref.

31 Am.Jur. p. 222, expresses the rule thusly:

'Sec. 20 (Justices of the Peace--Liabilities) Ministerial Acts--The general immunity of a justice of the peace from liability for judicial acts within his jurisdiction does not extend to ministerial acts, in the performance of which a justice of the peace is responsible for error and misconduct in like manner and to the same extent as all other ministerial officers. Thus, many cases make a distinction between the judicial and ministerial acts of a justice, and hold that justices of the peace are responsible in a civil suit to individuals for all damages arising from every illegal act they may have done in the exercise of their ministerial duties.

'Sec. 21--Particular acts as Ministerial or Judicial--Generally speaking, where the law defines and prescribes the duties to be performed by an officer with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment, the act is deemed to be ministerial in character, but where the act to be done involves the exercise of discretion or judgment, it is regarded as judicial in character * * *.'

To the same effect is 30 Am.Jur. pp. 53 and 54.

13 A.L.R. 1345 lays down the general rule of immunity of judges for acts performed as such, so long as the judge acts within his jurisdiction and in a judicial capacity; and (on page 1347) continues:

'A distinction is to be noted between acts which are judicial in their nature, and those of an administrative or ministerial character. The protection extends only to judicial decisions or acts of a judicial character, and not to mere administrative acts.'

It is pointed out that in a ministerial function, a line of conduct is marked out and the judge has nothing to do but follow it; and may be held liable for any failure to do so which results in the injury of another. See also 173 A.L.R. p. 805, et seq.; Heyn v. Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 261, W/E Dismd.; 34 Tex.Jur., Sec. 84, pp. 466, 467; 48 C.J.S. Judges Sec. 64, p. 1032; 51 C.J.S. Justices of the Peace Sec. 20, pp. 38, 39.

This poses the question: Was the act of providing a jury for the defendant a judicial function or a ministerial function?

We are not here dealing with the question of the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace, nor with complaint with the manner in which he has performed a judicial function. We are dealing solely with his failure to perform a statutory duty prescribed explicitly by the statutes; that is to impanel a jury for a defendant in a criminal case, unless such defendant has affirmatively waived such jury. We are dealing with the Justice's failure to perform one of his clerk's functions; and which function is prescribed with such exactitude by our statutes, that it is ministerial under our Supreme Court's definition, supra.

We think our Constitution and Code of Criminal Procedure prescribed the duties of the Justice of the Peace to provide a jury in the instant case, with that certainty, precision and exactitude that is free from all doubt. The act to be performed was therefore ministerial, and not judicial, and the refusal of the Justice of the Peace to provide a jury subjects him to civil liability for damages.

Defendant relies on the case of Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689. In that case the Justice of the Peace refused to approve an...