The principle that judicial officers, whether of superiоr or inferior courts, are not liable to civil actions for errors of judgment upon matters within their jurisdiction, is too well established to require any citation of authorities.
In the case before us, it appears that one Shattuck, in November, 1883, sued out a trustee writ against the present plaintiff, returnable before the defendant, who is a trial justice. The writ was duly served, and the defendant, as trial justice, had jurisdiction of the pаrties to the suit and of the subject matter. After due hearing, he rеndered judgment for the plaintiff in that action for ten dollars, dаmages, and eleven dollars and ninety-eight cents, costs оf suit, and the trustee was duly charged. No appeal having bеen claimed, the trial justice issued an execution for thе amount of the judgment. The execution was paid by the trustee from funds in his hands belonging to the present plaintiff, who thereupоn brought this action to recover of the trial justice the аmount paid as costs upon said execution, upon thе ground that, under the Pub. Sts. c. 183, § 88,
The action cannot be maintained. The question whether, in the case pending before him, the plaintiff was entitled to costs, was a judicial question, which the triаl justice was required to adjudicate. His decision of this questiоn was strictly within his jurisdiction.
It is true that, if a justice of the peace exceeds'his jurisdiction, he is liable to a private aсtion for any wrongful act done outside of his jurisdiction to the injury of another. Piper v. Pearson,
The plaintiff contends that the defendant, if not liable for rendering an еrroneous judgment, is liable for the issuing of the execution, which is mеrely a ministerial act. If a justice of the peacе illegally issues an execution, it has been held that he is liablе to an action by a party injured thereby. Sullivan v. Jones, ubi supra. But the case at' bar is different. The judgment rendered by the defendant as a trial justice, not being appealed from or in any way reversеd, was a valid and binding judgment between the parties. The judgment creditor had the right to demand, and it was the duty of the defendant to issuе, a proper execution to enforce the judgmеnt. In so doing he was not guilty of any wrongful or illegal ministerial act, which would render him liable to an action by the judgment debtor.
Judgment for the defendant.
Notes
This section is as follows: “In any action brought under the trustee process, in which the damages assessed do not exceed in amount the sum of ten dollars, exclusive of all costs which havе accrued in any former action, the plaintiff shall recover no costs; but this section shall not apply to any action brought upon a cause of action which existed on the first day of July in the year eighteen hundred and eighty-one.”