executive power, it can not be reviewed by the courts, no matter whether the motive be malicious and corrupt, and whether it causes special injury to an individual. The only remedy, if any there be, would be by way of impeachment.

Inferior officers charged with duties to carry into effect the laws are usually called administrative officers. The protection to such officers acting within their powers extends only to their errors. If such an officer acts corruptly or maliciously, he may be held liable to civil suit by an individual injured.

Any executive or administrative officer may be charged with the performance of duties that are merely ministerial. As to such duties, the afficer is subject to the control of the courts by the writ of mandamus, or may be held liable for damages to an individual specially injured through his improper conduct.

Whenever an officer acts outside of his official authority, he to that extent incurs all the responsibility of an individual.

§ 615. Liability of judicial officers.-Judicial acts necessarily involve the exercise of judgment or discretion. For such acts there is complete and absolute immunity from civil suits. So long as they act within their jurisdiction, judges can not be held liable civilly, however gross the error may be, or however corrupt and malicious the motive that inspires the act. This is now the well-settled law, older cases affirming a contrary doctrine having been overruled. The rule is not everywhere applied with equal force to courts of special and limited jurisdictions, as to those of superior and general jurisdiction.

The strong reason upon which the rule rests is in public policy. It is deemed more advantageous to the public that judges shall be wholly free from fear of private

suit. The frailty of human nature is such that an honest litigant, firmly convinced of the justice of his cause, is prone upon an adverse decision to believe that the judge can not have acted with pure motives. The decision must always be against one party or the other, and if it were permitted to sue a judge for a corrupt decision, every honest judge might be hampered by the fear of suits brought by those who feel aggrieved at his decisions. Such a fear would to a greater or less extent necessarily impair the efficiency of the judges. It is therefore deemed best to clothe the judge while acting within his jurisdiction with complete immunity from private suits, and to leave the remedy in the hands of the state only.

By the phrase, "having jurisdiction," is not meant merely the having jurisdiction of the special case before the court, but the having jurisdiction of that class of cases. From this results a distinction between courts of general jurisdiction and those of limited jurisdiction, such as justices of the peace. The former have as a part of their jurisdiction the right to determine whether the special case before them comes within their general jurisdiction, the latter have the limits of their jurisdiction fixed with precision, and are bound to confine themselves within such limits. In the former case the judge can not be held liable for mere error, but may be liable if he acted maliciously and corruptly and without there being a fair judicial question that he had not jurisdiction; in the latter case the judge may be held liable for his error, as well as for malice and corruption.

Judicial officers often have imposed upon them duties which are merely ministerial. As to such they do not act judicially. For example, after a bill of exceptions has been settled, the signing of it by the judge is a ministerial act and may be enforced by mandamus. It is

a general rule that for failure to perform ministerial acts, judges are liable the same as other ministerial officers.

§ 616. Mandamus.-Apart from the ordinary forms of action there is a class of remedies which are properly designated as extraordinary remedies, such as mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition, habeas corpus and certiorari.

The writ of mandamus is a command issuing from a court of competent jurisdiction in the name of the state directed to some corporation or officer, or inferior court, requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed, or from operation of law. The writ is either alternative or peremptory. In the first instance it is usual to issue it in the alternative form, which requires the person to whom it is directed to appear and show cause why the peremptory writ should not issue. If he shows good cause, the proceedings are at an end. If he fails to show good cause, the court awards the peremptory writ which is its final judgment in the case, and obedience to it can be enforced by attachment. From judgments awarding the peremptory writ there is usually an appeal allowed except in some special cases, as where it issues from the courts of last resort.

§ 617. Nature of the action. The proceeding is instituted in the name of the state on the relation of some individual who has an interest in the matter, and who is known as the relator. The writ is issued only in cases where there is a clear legal right and the party has no other adequate remedy. Its office is to compel the performance of a ministerial act, but not to control the exercise of a discretion. It will issue to compel a judge to decide a case, but it will not direct him how to decide it. Though generally used to enforce the performance

of public duties, it may be resorted to to enforce private rights when withheld by officers. The following are some of the cases in which this writ may be invoked: (1) To compel the board of commissioners to build or repair bridges; (2) to compel a judge to sign a bill of exceptions or to make a record; (3) to compel a justice of the peace to render judgment or send papers to a higher court; (4) to compel the mayor and city council to levy a tax, or make estimates for public improvements in favor of contractors.

§ 618. Quo warranto.-Quo warranto is the name of a writ which at common law might be issued against persons or corporations claiming to exercise any office or franchise, for the purpose of inquiring into their authority, and ousting them from such office or franchise in case no authority should be shown. By the common practice in many, if not all, the states, the redress is sought by means of an information in the nature of a quo warranto. Some of the cases in which the remedy is applied are (1) where any person shall usurp any public office, or any office in a private corporation; (2) where any officer has done or suffered an act which works a forfeiture of the office; (3) where an association of persons shall assume to act as a corporation contrary to law; (4) where for nonuser or misuser a corporation has forfeited its corporate rights.

$619. How obtained. The information is based upon the affidavit of some person, who states specifically the acts or omissions which show a case of justifying the proceedings. When the information is filed and the proper notice is served, the defendant appears and the case is conducted, as to pleading and trial, as ordinary

civil cases, except where the statute makes provision for a different method of proceeding.

Prohibition.-Prohibition

is an extraordi

§ 620. nary writ issuing out of a court of superior jurisdiction directed to an inferior court commanding it to cease entertaining jurisdiction in a cause or proceeding over which it has no control, or where such inferior tribunal assumes to entertain a cause over which it has jurisdiction, but goes beyond its legitimate powers and transgresses the bounds prescribed to it by law. It is a writ which should only be issued in cases of extreme necessity and not for a grievance which may be redressed by means of the ordinary forms of law or in equity. The application for the writ is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and will be issued only where the wrong is imminent and the right to the remedy is clear. Ordinarily, no appeal lies from the judgment of the court refusing to grant the writ.

§ 621. Habeas corpus.-The writ of habeas corpus is issued by any court of competent jurisdiction or judge thereof, in behalf of any person who is restrained of his liberty under any pretext whatever, and it is directed to the officer or person who has custody of the petitioner, commanding him to produce the body of the person so restrained forthwith before the judge or court by whose order the writ was issued, with the day and cause of his caption and detention. It is a writ of right, and the Constitution of the United States provides that the privilege of the writ shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety requires it.

§ 622. What application must show-Return.-One who applies for the writ must show in his application by