Stewart v. Cooley
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Cornell |
| Citation | 23 Minn. 347 |
| Decision Date | 09 February 1877 |
| Parties | LEVI M. STEWART <I>vs.</I> GROVE B. COOLEY, impleaded, etc. |
vs.
GROVE B. COOLEY, impleaded, etc.
Page 348
This action was brought in the court of common pleas of Hennepin county, against the defendant Cooley, judge of the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis, the defendant Davenport, clerk of that court, and others. In his complaint, the plaintiff, after stating that he is an attorney-at-law, etc., and has always borne a good reputation, etc., alleges that the defendants, contriving and maliciously intending to injure him, etc., on October 7, 1875, at the city of Minneapolis, "wilfully and maliciously conspired together to cause said plaintiff to be charged with, complained of, and arrested and imprisoned for, the crime of perjury, as hereinafter set forth." The complaint then alleges that, at the time and place before mentioned, the defendant Nash went before the defendants Cooley and Davenport, the judge and clerk of said municipal court, and subscribed and swore to a complaint, in writing, which is set forth in hæc verba, and charges plaintiff with perjury in an affidavit for an attachment in a suit by one Bogardus against defendant Nash; that thereupon the defendants Cooley and Davenport issued the warrant of the said court for plaintiff's arrest on the charge of perjury contained in the complaint; that on the same day the plaintiff was arrested upon said warrant, and taken before said court for examination, when plaintiff moved that he be discharged and the
Page 349
complaint dismissed, because said complaint failed to state a cause of action; that thereupon the court, having heard the motion, adjourned the examination until the next day, and on the next day the defendant Cooley, municipal judge, denied the motion, and again adjourned the examination until the day following, at which adjourned day the plaintiff was present before said court, ready for examination on the charge contained in said complaint against him; that at said time and place the defendant Nash was not present, but refrained from being present, and the defendants Cooley and Davenport, judge and clerk as aforesaid, refrained from taking any steps or process to procure the attendance of said Nash; that thereupon, at said time and place, the defendant Cooley, as municipal judge, discharged the plaintiff from arrest, and dismissed the complaint, on the ground of the failure of Nash, the complaining witness, to appear; that the other defendants, being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoppe v. Klapperich, Nos. 34312
...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 judicial officer cannot be called ......
-
Peterson v. Knutson, No. 45333
...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. Ernst & Ernst, supra; Wilbrecht v. Babcock, 179 Minn. 263, 228 N.W. 916......
-
Hoppe v. Klapperich, No. 34312.
...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 judicial officer cannot be called......
-
Yaselli v. Goff, No. 248.
...usefulness in the office. We are unable to distinguish between the two cases in principle. Our attention is called to Stewart v. Cooley, 23 Minn. 347, 23 Am. Rep. 690, upon which the plaintiff appears strongly to rely. His counsel asserts that it is perfectly clear that a wrongdoer cannot b......
-
Hoppe v. Klapperich, Nos. 34312
...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 judicial officer cannot be called ......
-
Peterson v. Knutson, No. 45333
...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. Ernst & Ernst, supra; Wilbrecht v. Babcock, 179 Minn. 263, 228 N.W. 916......
-
Hoppe v. Klapperich, No. 34312.
...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 judicial officer cannot be called......
-
Yaselli v. Goff, No. 248.
...usefulness in the office. We are unable to distinguish between the two cases in principle. Our attention is called to Stewart v. Cooley, 23 Minn. 347, 23 Am. Rep. 690, upon which the plaintiff appears strongly to rely. His counsel asserts that it is perfectly clear that a wrongdoer cannot b......