Stewart v. Case
| Decision Date | 24 April 1893 |
| Citation | 53 Minn. 62,54 N.W. 938 |
| Parties | STEWART v CASE ET AL. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(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.
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. We are not referred to and do not find any holding that the exemption does not extend to such officers as assessors. The cases of Weaver v. Devendorf, 3 Denio, 117;Barhyte v. Shepherd, 35 N. Y. 238; Railroad Co. v. Nolan, 48 N. Y. 513;Baker v. Allen, 21 Pick. 382,-hold that it does extend to them, and other decisions extend the rule to other officers when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drexler v. Walters
......Further, the defendant Faye v. Peterson the plaintiff in the divorce case clearly is not a state officer or acting under color of any statute * * * of any state. 290 F. Supp. 156 Request for Injunctive ...806 (1919) (board of directors of certain corporations); Murray v. Mills, 56 Minn. 75, 57 N.W. 324 (1894) (justice of the peace); Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62, 54 N.W. 938 (1893) (tax assessor). See also Alzua v. Johnson, 231 U.S. 106, 34 S.Ct. 27, 58 L.Ed. 142 (1913); Bradley v. ......
-
Peterson v. Knutson
......528, 34 L.Ed.2d 491 (1972), a judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed because:. 1. The defendants who decided the case did so in proper exercise of their judicial duties and are therefore immune to this suit. 2. Prior decisions of the Federal courts, ...Lee, supra; Linder v. Foster, 209 Minn. 43, 295 N.W. 299 (1940); Murray v. Mills, 56 Minn. 75, 57 N.W. 324 (1894); Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62, 54 N.W. 938 (1893); Stewart v. Cooley, 23 Minn. 347 (1877). See, also, State ex rel. Gardner v. Holm, supra. Cf. Gammel v. ......
-
Hoppe v. Klapperich
......* * * ‘The facts of a case may at once justify an action either for malicious prosecution or for the abuse of process. In other words, an abuse of process may occur in the ... upon his own convictions, uninfluenced by any fear or [28 N.W.2d 788] apprehension of consequences personal to himself.’ Stewart v. Cooley, 23 Minn. 347 350,23 Am.Rep. 690. ‘It is unquestionable, and has been from the earliest days of the common law, that a ......
-
Savage v. United States
......In the leading and analogous case of Yaselli v. Goff, 12 F.2d 396 (2nd Cir. 1926), aff'd 275 U.S. 503, 48 S.Ct. 155, 72 L.Ed. 395 (1927); plaintiff commenced an action for malicious ... --------Notes: 1 The original complaint has been twice amended. 2 Stewart v. Case, 53 Minn. 62, 54 N.W. 938 (1893); Roerig v. Houghton, 144 Minn. 231, ......