3 Blackf. 72 | Ind. | 1832
This is an action of debt brought against a justice of the peace, and his sureties, on his official bond.
The plaintiff declares .that Robert Flinn was elected a justice of the peace oí Lawrence county, and, with the other defendants, executed, on the I9th ■ day of August, 1828, a bond with the condition — that he should faithfully discharge the duties of his said office, and pay over on demand to the proper person authorised or entitled to receive the same, all moneys that should come into his hands by virtue of his office, — avers that the said Robert Flinn has not kept and observed the conditions of the said bond, but hath broken the same in this, that he has not faithfully discharged his duty as such justice of the peace, but that he hath acted illegally, oppressively, and corruptly, in his said office in this, — that one John Phillips heretofore, to wit, on the 26th day of April, 1830, deposited with him a note drawn by Joel Conley and John Dean, in favour of said Phillips for 25 dollars, payable on or before the 1st of June, 1830, for collection as a justice of the peace, and that the said Robert disregarding his obligation to wait until the 1st of June, 1830,
The defendants demurred to this declaration; the demurrer was sustained; and judgment rendered in favour of the defendants. To reverse this judgment the writ of error is sued put..
A justice of the peace was required, Rev. Code, 1824, p. 272, to give bond in the sum of 1,000 dollars with good freehold security, for the faithful discharge of his duty, and for paying over, on demand, to the proper person authorised or entitled to receive the same, all moneys that might come into his hands. A bond executed agreeably to the statute is sued upon.
Before we advert to the statute, it may be well to inquire how far a justice would be liable for acts done by virtue Of his
In this case, the charges in the declaration are admitted to be true. They present a scries of oppressive, illegal, and corrupt acts. Some of them are judicial, and others ministerial. A direct exercise of the judicial and ministerial power, with which the justice was clothed, is presented, by which, regardless of his duty, before a cause of action had accrued, he issues a summons, receives a false return of service, renders judgment, allows interest before the debt was due, and on the day of issuing the summons, issues an execution and permits the property of an absent person to be sacrificed for less than half its value. This conduct we think must be unparalleled in the history of the state, and would, if tolerated by law, bring the judicial department into merited odium and contempt. For such acts, the justice, exclusively of the bond, would be subject to damages at the suit of the party aggrieved. These acts could only have been committed by him as a justice of the peace. In that character, and in no other, is he responsible.
Whether his sureties are responsible, must depend on the terms .of the bond. They stipulate, that he shall faithfully discharge his duty and pay over all money, &c. What are the duties he is faithfully to perform ? Unquestionably, all that attach to the office. It is, however, contended that the faithful discharge of duty is confined to the paying over money collected, &c. If this had been the intention of the legislature, it would have confined the condition to that particular part of his duty. The paying over the money is only introduced as an instant , and cannot be considered as a limitation of the duty to be performed, for the violation of which the sureties interpose their responsibility. '
The faithful discharge of duty embraces not only the integrity of the justice, but attaches to the. various duties of his office. Is palpable and gross corruption a faithful discharge of duty? It is a violation and abandonment of duty, a disregard of the trust reposed, its prostitution to the gratification of the ivorst passions, and the application of a power pure in itself, to the production of the greatest possible evil. To confine the
It is true, in this case of Minor, his duties were entirely ministerial. - In the case beforé us, a part of the acts charged and admitted to be true, are ministerial, such as issuing the summons and the execution, and in these, if there was corruption,it cannot be contended that the justice has faithfully discharged the duties of his office. ' But we are of opinion that, for corruption in a judicial act, he and his sureties áre liable on the bond. The language used is general, and it must appear an inadmissible refinement to limit the undertaking to one class of duties to the exclusion of another. The sureties are responsible for all acts of the .justice, committed by virtue of his office, and for which, exclusively of the bond, he would be individually responsible
We are therefore of opinion, that the Circuit Court erred in sustaining the demurrer and rendering judgment against the plaintiff
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
See The State ex rel. Robinson v. Littlefield et al., Nov. term, 1835, post.