Stewart v. Case

• Decision Date: 24 April 1893
• Citation: 53 Minn. 62
• Parties: LEVI M. STEWART <I>vs.</I> SWEET W. CASE <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

53 Minn. 62

LEVI M. STEWART vs. SWEET W. CASE et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Argued April 17, 1893.

Decided April 24, 1893.

Appeal by plaintiff, Levi M. Stewart, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Thomas Canty, J., made October 1, 1892, sustaining a demurrer to the second, third and fourth causes of action stated in the complaint.

The plaintiff, by his complaint, stated for a second cause of action that in 1886 he was the owner of certain lots in block eighty-two (82) in Minneapolis; that the defendant Sweet W. Case was assessor, and the defendant William B. Jones was assistant assessor of the city; that they wrongfully conspired for the purpose, and with the intent to injure, cheat and defraud him, and to assess, and in pursuance thereof did in that year assess, his said property at the sum of $173,100. That such assessment was excessive, and an overvaluation of at least $50,000. That this was done without his knowledge or consent, and that he was compelled thereby to pay and did on May 30, 1887, pay $865 in excess of what he should have legally and justly paid as taxes upon said property. That plaintiff did not discover the facts until after he had paid the money, and that he thereby sustained damages in said last-mentioned sum.

The third and fourth causes of action were for a similar conspiracy and overvaluation of other lots in said city owned by plaintiff, whereby he was compelled to and did pay $1,040 in excess of what he should have legally and justly paid as taxes thereon, to his further damage said last-mentioned sum. He demanded judgment for these sums with interest.

The defendants demurred to these causes of action, and the demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff appealed.

F. F. Davis, for appellant.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

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...