*1 city defendant contended It is also VI. zoning. spot prohibited engaged in HUENDLING, Appellee, Vernon P. persuaded. are so

We JENSEN; Darlo Walter Davitt Deni d/b/a Municipal McQuillin, statement This Valu, Super Bank, son First National Den 25.- section Vol. Corporations, 1965Rev. ison, Iowa; Servoss; L. D. Western Sure succinctly re 309-310, serves to pages ty Company, Appellants. claim: “Under foregoing fute the No. 53368. shop zoning laws provisions of the usual Supreme Court of Iowa. lo centers convenient ping and business are districts in residential cations June 1969. purpose. for this

permitted, rezoning as is ‘spot’ or ‘is invalid They not constitute do existence, location zoning where their land’ they are Nor and extent are reasonable. hereto see regard per se.” With nuisances Bluffs, 246 City of Council Keller v. also 213-214, A. 66 N.W.2d 91-99, Zoning L.R.2d §§ C.J.S. Law, Municipal 843-855; Rhyne on pages 32.3, 816, 825-828; and An- pages section nos. 51 A.L.R.2d proposi- in the find no merit VII. We support of a by plaintiffs in urged tions reversal. City of Cedar defendant is evident scope its autho-

Rapids acted within the establishing the con- police power rized shopping center classification. troverted face, on its ordinance is not invalid us dis- nothing in record before upon which any plausible closes basis arbitrary or zoning change was hold the unreasonable. cogent circumstances

In fact there are propriety and support which tend municipal legislative enact- of that wisdom concerned. which we are here ment with fairly ordinance being debatable the Trial court cor- must be allowed to stand. rectly so held. plain- appeal on this

Costs taxed tiffs.

Affirmed.

All concur. Justices

William Welch, H. Logan, for L. D. Servoss, appellant. Schechtman,

Wunschel & Carroll, for appellee. it had been time cleared bank

STUART, Justice. properly presented. this action founded Plaintiff custody about Plaintiff remained D. against L. Servoss upon false 1¼ time, charge was later dismissed hours. The By trial parties. other several de- defendant. as to all action had been dismissed *3 rea- various except for fendants Servoss parts of defendant’s Plaintiff offered the court Trial to pertinent here. sons deposition evidence. We discovery into Servoss judgment against in a resulted portions: quote pur- and for our appealed He has $2500. only de- you the that poses say will be considered in all “Q. I these checks Super that fendant. from the Denison Valu received is, them, un- that have been returned to pur- groceries paid for Plaintiff’s wife get out a paid, your proceedings is first by Super a check Valu chased at Denison preliminary A. information? Yes. the account in her husband’s drawn on “Q. you from them Do ever collect Bank, Breda, Iowa. She Savings Breda No, no, writing them a letter? A. never name and her her signed both husband’s any had other than some checks. collections to the check. name now, “Q. Well, a little more let’s be depos- manager supermarket the you specific. What mean a collec- do National Bank in the First ited check They with insuffi- tion? A. were checks Denison, mistake sent which cient funds that I collected. to the Coun- for collection Crawford check It returned ty Savings Bank of Denison. “Q.' you And collect those? A. Yeah. affix- after check the First National Now, you money “Q. collect this when yellow slip phrase a on which ing check, all of that to you for the return do “wrong checked. bank” was Super A. Yes. Valu? the check The First National returned “Q. you commission? Do receive supermarket took manager of the who A. Yes. Servoss, “bad checks” it and some other County. peace, in Crawford “Q. percent For A. 20 collections? for had collected other checks Servoss collecting. for percent supermarket for a 20 commission. he In accordance had manager with his sign customary practice, preliminary in- “Q. ^[*] How ^[*] great time lapse there your with Mr. between conversations crime charging plaintiff formation with the Jen- Super sen at Valu and is- the Denison drawing uttering of a check. of false Well, A. suance of the warrant? plaintiff’s for a warrant He issued is, right away, that have done would been this Whether the infor- on information. reasonably length short I wasn’t of time. originally named mation and warrant up. going to hold him as plaintiff significant his is wife plaintiff person. consented to the jurisdiction ^[*] ^[*] “Q. you these checks collected On plaintiff, a arrested farmer A constable Super prior to this for the Denison Valu means, him of substantial here, you percent them 20 charge one did suggested Defendant defendant’s office. Yes. commission? A. guilty. he A call to the Breda Sav- plead “Q. you one, you had And collected ings carried had this Bank disclosed checking charged 20 percent account would have them substantial balance in presume so, yes. this—(cid:127) I all A. times. The check judges by agreement damages Was for “Q. Too? acts committed Yes. their juris them? A. within with diction, recognized as this Court when it ordinary charge? your A. “Q. Is this doctrine, adopted Bradley Yes. Wall. 20 L.Ed. 646 (1872). immunity applies even when this, judge “Q. you get is In addition to do accused acting maliciously corrupt Yeah, get half court costs? A. we ly, and it ‘is not for protection or bene the court costs. ^[*] ^[*] the benefit of fit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for public, whose interest it “Q. Now, it, judges liberty I should be at understand Mr. Ser- voss, your exercise their functions procedure you independence usual which fol- *4 and without fear consequences’. lowed in somebody (Scott this case was when Stansfield, v. you 220, called L.R. 3 check, to collect a Ex. you prepare (1868), 223 quoted in Bradley supra v. information— A. Yeah. [13 349; note, 350, Wall. 20 L.Ed. at 650].) “Q. them, And take it down to is that judge’s duty is a to decide all cases correct? A. Yeah. within jurisdiction be him, fore including “Q. you controversial cases that And do sign advise them to arouse the most feelings intense this information the liti they if want their mon- gants. may His errors ey? be corrected they ap on A. If want me anything to do peal, but he should not it, they have to fear that got to sign the informa- litigants unsatisfied may tion.” hound him with litigation charging malice corruption. manager supermarket of the stated Imposing such a burden judges procedure Mr. Servoss’s used contribute not to principled and fearless justice peace who also did other decision-making but intimidation.” collecting him. some for Pierson Ray, v. 547, 553-554, 386 U.S. 87 1213, S.Ct. 1217-1218, 288, 18 L.Ed.2d The trial court found defendant “is 294-295 (1967). peace an who carries on ex- who, tensive collection business when Iowa, in juris common with other unpaid comes checks is not averse dictions immunity extends using the criminal arm of the law courts jurisdiction, limited including furtherance of his business” to collection justices peace. Thompson v. Jack shield himself and shift court costs son, 376, 382-385, 93 Iowa 1004, 61 N.W. county. 1006-1007, 27 92; Londegan L.R.A. v. supports findings Hammer, The evidence these 508, 512; 30 Iowa 51 C.J.S. Jus Defendant Peace, conclusions. does not claim 19a, tices p. 45; 31 § Am.Jur. 227, otherwise. 27; Peace, Anno: § Justices 802, 173 A.L.R. 806; Anno: A.L.R. 13 question I. The basic for our determi- 1344, 1348. nation peace is whether a requires preliminary who information “A when act an part and issues arrest warrant ing judicially, and within sphere of his regular procedure collecting for bad checks jurisdiction, is not liable a civil action percent protected a 20 for commission is may commit, error he though even by judicial immunity when no there was he acts impure corrupt motives.” probable cause for the issuance of the war- Becker, Yelton v. Mo.App., 86, 248 S.W.2d rant. 89. Henke McCord, v. 378, 384, 55 Iowa 7 solidly 623, “Few 625; doctrines were more estab- N.W. Anno: 802, 173 A.L.R. 803; immunity lished at than common law 1344, 1345. Anno: 13 A.L.R.

749 subject jurisdiction he has mat- (2) action defendant’s must evaluate We ter; Ramey, (3) Fraley v. person. generally ac- this light of case in the 996; Caldwell, 993, F.Supp. Pierce 239 v. cepted statement. 229, 992, 994; Idaho William- 360 P.2d 72, 76; Waugh, D.C., F.Supp. son v. distinguish judicial cases Brothers, supra; Anno: Duncan v. Heath v. acts. from ministerial acts 802, 1344, 803; A.L.R. Anno: 13 A.L.R. 133, 522, Halfhill, 131, 76 N.W. 376, 523; Jackson, 93 Iowa Thompson v. 92; 1007, 385, 1004, 27 L.R.A. 61 N.W. though isHe immune even he ex 497; 495, 12 Iowa Gowing Gowgill, v. jurisdiction. Holmes, ceeds his v. McGrew 993, F.Supp. (D. Fraley Ramey, 239 540, 196; 145 Iowa Caldwell, Ida C.W.Va.1965); Pierce McCord, 378, 384-386, Henke v. 55 Iowa 992, 994; Yelton Beck 229, 360 ho P.2d 623, 625-626; Caldwell, N.W. Pierce su er, 89; Pruitt Mo.App., 248 S.W.2d Lutz, pra; Holland v. 194 Kan. Turner, Tex.Civ.App., 336 S.W.2d Moon, 1019; P.2d Shaw v. Or. 442-443; A.L.R. Anno: 245 P. 45 A.L.R. Anno: rou 1347. Those Anno: 13 A.L.R. 173 A.L.R. Anno: 13 A.L.R. might performed be tine matters which 1344, 1355. be ministerial. Yelton a clerk are said to *5 Becker, Turner, supra; v. supra; Pruitt v. Civil attaches when only he acts 20, p. 49. the Peace 51 of § C.J.S. Justices wholly jurisdiction. without v. Williams call for acts are those which Judicial Kozak, supra; Schaffer, Rasmus v. 230 legal exercising discre judgment 245, 244, 246; Ala. 160 Ray, So. v. Waters Becker, supra; v. Pruitt tion. Yelton v. supra; Lutz, supra, Holland 401 v. P.2d at Marion, Turner, Cal. supra; Rogers v. 11 1020; Perkins, Ky. 470, Cox v. 299 185 S. 750, ; App.2d 51 P.2d 760 54 C.J.S. Justices 954, 801; 797, W.2d 173 Henry A.L.R. v. c, Defendant here p. 47. Peace 19§ Albert, 316, 317, 268 Minn. 129 N.W.2d upon plaintiff’s a warrant for issued 319; Hoppe Klapperich, 224, v. 224 Minn. justice The information. preliminary 235, 788, 28 780, 819, N.W.2d 173 A.L.R. was peace whether there must determine 832; 400, Wiley, Edwards v. 70 N.M. 374 probable the issuance of the war cause for 284, 285; Dunivan, P.2d Vickrey v. 59 N. Fraley Ra act. judicial rant. This is v. 90, 853, 855; Moon, M. 279 P.2d Shaw v. 993, (D.C.W.Va. mey, F.Supp. 239 994 supra; 802, 808; Anno: 173 A.L.R. Anno: Becker, supra; Rogers v. 1965); Yelton v. 1344, 13 A.L.R. 1351. Marion, supra; 51 C.J.S. Justices 19c, p. Peace 47. § case, preliminary In informa tion, proper was executed on its face peace acting justice of A required by Chapter manager the store sphere jurisdiction if: within the of his peace 754, Code of A justice Iowa. statutory (1) prerequisites jurisdic authority preliminary has hear informa- fulfilled; Dewell, Lanpher v. 56 tion are 748.1, tions issue warrants. Section 102-103; 153, 101, 155-157, 748.2, question ju Code of The Iowa. 373, Kozak, (4th 280 F. 374 Williams v. person was risdiction of eliminated Del., Antoine’s, Inc., Cir.1922); Rock v. voluntarily when submitted to the 741; 737, Ray, Fla. A.2d Waters v. 197 jurisdiction court. Defendant would 329-330; 326, App., v. 167 Duncan So.2d appear to be from civil suit under immune 398, 399-400; Brothers, Ky., 344 S.W.2d general rule. Utley Independence, City v. 240 Or. 384, 91, 93; Plaintiff disagree Anno: A.L.R. does with the gen- 402 P.2d 173 1360; 802, 811; 1344, but argues A.L.R. eral rule Anno: 13 this case taken in its 750 547, 554, Ray, son 87 it should be v. 386 U.S. S.Ct. is such perspective

total 294; Bradley judi- 1213, 288, 18 L.Ed.2d v. exception the rule of an considered 646; 335, claimed to 20 L.Ed. Gre immunity. The two factors 13 Wall. cial 579, Biddle, goire (2d v. 177 F.2d 580-581 lack of are the support this reuult obvious Cir.1949); Goff, 396, Yaselli v. 12 F.2d a war- 56 for the issuance of probable cause 1239, Fraley (2 Cir.); A.L.R. 1246 v. Ra use of plaintiff’s arrest and the rant for mey, supra; Waugh, F. collecting a Williamson v. 160 process to aid in criminal 72, Supp. Ro (D.C.S.D.W.Va.1958); 76 civil debt. Marion, gers supra; Wiley, v. Edwards 284, (1962); 70 N.M. 374 P.2d 286 manager McWhorter, Tex.Civ.App., Tedford v. peace realized was no should have there 1964); (on rehearing S.W.2d probable the issuance of this cause for 802, 816; Anno: 173 A.L.R. Anno: A. attached re warrant. check L.R. 1365. slip turn show the check was sent to not re wrong bank for collection. was The few cases we have found which a ac funds or no turned for insufficient judge authority used criminal aid in However, are clear that count. the cases collecting obligation uniformly a civil subject a probable lack of cause does not immunity. applied the rule of liability. Fraley peace (D.C.W.Va. Ramey, F.Supp. Berry Smith, In Va. S.E. Marion, Cal.App.2d Rogers 1965); (1927), plain- 55 A.L.R. 280-281 Moon, Or. 54 P.2d Shaw against tiff brought action Anno: P. A.L.R. 558, 245 peace who issued warrant his arrest 13 A.L.R. Anno: 173 A.L.R. charging agreement there an between is magistrate’s A decision justice of and the merchants that he *6 be sub warrant; sue a warrant for arrest should by was collect a claim criminal to of the warrant possible influence the was issued because he would jected to the fees; get and he more knew there was no that liability. It is essential threat of civil liability. criminal The court held a demur- good for a- from he be immune stating rer should have been sustained the in appears which judgment faith error in judicial immunity. rule of wrong. patently retrospect have been to Culeman, In 275, Landseidel v. 47 N.D. 593, 595, 1343, may 1339, 181 N.W. Although the warrant A.L.R. jury by special justice the the belief the check verdict found of issued in have been peace issued issuing of war who the arrest warrant acted good, practice the was not probable “bad with collection others without cause and in the for arrest rants corrupt with arresting plaintiff a malice in improper and is extort highly is checks” money powers of de from him. The court said: the “Ob- flagrant misuse of and immunity viously, acting judicially, Culeman was judicial if office. fendant’s Should jurisdiction, and within his charge of malice his belief as to in the of a apply face this whether or early left not Landseidel had committed Iowa cases corruption ? The McCord, immaterial, doubt, some crime it might as Henke v. question in Londegan duty have been his issue the warrant Iowa 7 N.W. nevertheless, 512; Gowing Hammer, might or at least he well have Iowa duty. now conceived it be his And but Iowa he re- Gowgill, 12 if Iowa garded duty warrant, rule is it as his accepted to issue recognizes the not de neither the fact that maliciously he acted the action that the motives for , probable nor the absence of cause for the Thompson v. terminative. Jackson personally Pier- arrest would render 376, 382, him liable.” Kessler, Fraley Ramey, F.Supp. In Mich. (D. Curnow against justice of alleged action Plaintiff W.Va.1965). N.W. in “the C. is arrest, issuing a warrant for his subsequent suance of the warrant and his maliciously “with he acted alleged incarceration were the result of assisting complaining the witness part a view to a conspiracy justice the plaintiff.” demand of the to collect a civil to prevent the two constables him from ex Michigan court said: ercising rights serve his to vote an election official in said election jurisdiction having “The justice obtained * * * “* * *”. court said: since set- subject-matter, of the the rule is well case, in in the issuance against can be tled no action sustained warrant, did jurisdiction have by one recovery damages him for (the rape) and of subject-matter crime of claiming injuriously affected have been (Fraley, person accused), her act indispensable by his action. is judicial judicial one issuing the warrant was that a to the administration immunity judicial for which she has officer, acts judicial who judge or other liability, wrongful her mo however may scope jurisdiction, his within the been, inju might tives have and however being held freely, act fear without consequences may in its it rious action, his responsible having a civil or proved Fraley.” inju- question by one motives riously judgments. affected Bradley In 13 Wall. af- uniformly held to be immunity is 335, 347, 20 L.Ed. the Su- U.S. is al- with which it fected the motives preme expressed reason for Court per- judicial has leged that officer rule as follows: fact duty. If the officer be formed his general principle “For remedy, corrupt, public has its but highest importance proper to the adminis- permitted to ob- cannot he defeated suitor officer, in tration alleging judge by against tain redress him, exercising authority vested in re- against that the him was judgment upon free to act shall be own convic- corrupt malicious motives.” sult of or tions, apprehension personal without consequences Liability to an- to himself. Corrupt may officials be removed everyone might feel himself swer to who by impeachment subjected to criminal judge, aggrieved the action of *7 prosecution, agreed it is but it is possession would be inconsistent with the independence judi essential to the freedom, destroy of that in- this would operate process cial judges that should not dependence judiciary without no can which possible ques under a the threat of suit Wall, respectable be either or useful.” 13 tioning the motives for their decisions. page page at 80 U.S. appeal. Their can be corrected on mistakes logic appears of this position The to be exposes de- clearly The here so evidence generally, accepted as no there is on attack doc- that improper motives fendant’s judicial immunity the le- doctrine of immunity unfair. trine seems judicial of gal scholars at this time when most other allega- difficulty equally strong that The severely criticized. being are immunities a force made which would tions could be there was judge his actions when defend compelled areWe to reverse in or such accusations little no basis for the trial court. This result should not be fact. approval interpreted of defendant’s allegations flagrant practice. strongest strongly of the use We condemn of in process obligation avail were no criminal to collect a civil misconduct engages opinion, judge court who in stated: seems the better and a. “It to be also, worthy of his office. that practice liability is not does exist even such judicial where act is malicious or cor- Reversed. rupt. But our own cases are not in entire harmony subject, and we do not on LARSON, MOORE, and Le- MASON necessary question it to determine find GRAND, JJ., concur. (Emphasis supplied). here.” jurisdictions other It must be conceded GARFIELD, J., specially. concurs C. support to the rule lend substantial here majority. finalized On other RAWLINGS, determinative, it BECKER, hand that alone SNELL and is not prescribe being resolve and us here JJ., dissent.

applied to be in Iowa. the rule I adhere to the view that end would To

GARFIELD, J.,C. concurs expressed Gowing Gowgill, in Iowa graphic case a ex- add serves as [1861], said: “We un- where we ample injustice can which result be, an the rule that where derstand ju- a persons use of untrained in offi- judicial capacity errs acting cer a capacity independent dicial minor our liable, he is where he judgment, but courts. favor, partiality, through acts or or fraud virtue knowingly wrong by a commits (dissenting). RAWLINGS, Justice office, he is In the case of The liable. Conolly [Conley] respectfully I dissent. the relation State Flinn, being an Blackford [Ind.] accept Briefly I stated can neither justice of upon the action bond majority’s statement to the effect we have charged peace, in which regard adopted position with heretofore conduct, oppressive illegal, with court of a jurisdic- say, judicial ‘for a act within conduct, agree nor corrupt or for malicious he should act justice, though tion er- majority finally the rule the with liable, un- roneously illegally, he is not adopts. corrupt impure or mo- he acts from less Where, however, corruptly he acts tives. I the conclu- disagree At the outset liability attaches’ majority as follows: stated sion immunity apply in the “Should “The conditions of the bond such as corruption chárge ? face of malice make the liable for such con- will sureties early question in Iowa cases left this expressly agree that duct. The bondsmen doubt, McCord, Henke v. 55 Iowa fear, principal their shall act fa- without 623, 625; Hammer, Londegan v. vor, he oppression; fraud or and where Gowgill, Gowing act, it is direct violation does so *8 recognizes now Iowa but Iowa petition in conditions of his bond. accepted rule that the mo- is charges the defendant distinctly this case not determinative. the action are tives for favor, oppression. fraud and 376, 382, 61 Thompson Jackson, v. Iowa charge demurrer. If a is admitted * * (Em- N.W. 1006 [1895] act, permitted so to is phasis supplied). law, and such conduct is tolerated Thomp- apparent to me brings judicial department It is not so into merited case, supra, sup- the issue at actually contempt.” (Emphasis settled and son odium Pudil, regard I refer in this state. In that Iowa plied). hand also Horne v. See Holmes, Dewell, Iowa Lanpher to v. McGrew 55 N.W. and this court where [1910], 9 N.W. 101. Furthermore, concept es- has been courts 1859.

poused the Illinois since INSURANCE OF COMPANY NORTH Douglass, 22 Ill. Garfield v. See AMERICA, Appellant, Davis, Ill.App. Grossman Lynch 240. (7 Cir.), F.2d Stift COMPANY, SPERRY & HUTCHISON recent most Appellee. apparently In what is People jurisdiction, for Use case in that 53483. No. Leviton, Ill.App. 309, 64 N.E. Jones Supreme says in substantial Court Iowa. 2d the court settled that is part: “While the law Jus June 1969. damages not liable for of the Peace is tice per in any irregularity error or scope of within the duties formance of his the law also it is jurisdiction, his Peace, even that a

state Justice his scope of acting within though he civilly to answer can made be jurisdiction, maliciously acted criminally has if he performance corruptly in the record.” or has falsified duties ad- majority found, court Trial acted instant case mits, defendant attempting corruptly maliciously or subject check payment of the secure percent aof thereby obtain benefit any in addition commission collection to receive. entitled lawfully he was fee Code, 601.128-601.131, sections See me it is to these circumstances Under po- adopted a dual defendant evident peace, he, as sition case, as- also officially in a criminal acting bill private of a role the extraneous sumed en- as a club collector, using former otherwise, defend- latter. Stated hance colora- to fasten attempted purposely ant purely personal public office of his tion activities. remunerative official cloak of apparent me It is aas by defendant immunity enjoyed as be so extended peace should liability for such him from insulate corrupt activities extra-curricular Furthermore, at bar. in the case disclosed does decisis stare the rule I contend majority view. adoption of demand *9 affirm. I immunity issue theOn BECKER, JJ-, join SNELL dissent.