Stewart v. Case

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Writing for the Court: GILFILLAN
• Citation: 53 Minn. 62,54 N.W. 938
• Decision Date: 24 April 1893
• Parties: STEWART v CASE ET AL.

53 Minn. 62
54 N.W. 938

STEWART
v
CASE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 24, 1893.

[54 N.W. 938]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The rule exempting judicial officers from civil actions for their decisions and acts in that capacity, however erroneous and by whatever motive prompted, extends to assessors in assessing property for taxation.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; Canty, Judge.

Action by Levi M. Stewart against Sweet W. Case and another, as assessor and assistant assessor, for wrongfully assessing certain real estate of plaintiff. There was judgment for defendants, and, from an order overruling a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

P. F. Davis, for appellant.

Robert D. Russell, for respondents.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

The defendants were assessor and assistant assessor of the city of Minneapolis. In each of several counts as a cause of action the complaint alleges that the defendants, acting in such capacities, wrongfully, unlawfully, willfully, and maliciously conspired, confederated, and agreed together with intent to injure the plaintiff, and to assess, and did so assess, certain of his real estate at certain sums, which it alleges to have been excessive, inequitable, and overvaluation, and that thereby he was compelled to pay, and did pay, for taxes a certain sum in excess of what he ought justly and legally to have paid. It is unquestionable, and has been from the earliest days of the common law, that a judicial officer cannot be called to account in a civil action for his determinations and acts in his judicial capacity, however erroneous or by whatever motives prompted. This rule and the reason for it are nowhere more clearly and emphatically stated than by Mr. Justice Cornell in Stewart v. Cooley, 23 Minn. 350. The only question has been as to its application to officers whose duties are largely ministerial only, when they come to perform duties imposed on them in their nature judicial or quasi judicial, as is the case with an assessor under the tax laws. When he comes to determine the value of property he exercises a quasi judicial function; he must determine it upon his judgment. Judge Cooley, in his work on Taxation, (page 786,) lays it down that the exemption from private actions extends to assessors. If the rule protects such officers at all, it protects them for the same reason and to the same extent as in the case of judges of courts. There are but few decisions in which the question was directly involved....