Deal v. Harris

Eccleston, J., delivered the opinion of this court. In treating of what kind of erroneous proceedings will sustain an action like the present, the authorities recognize a distinction, in some respects, between the proceedings of courts of general jurisdiction and of tribunals having but limited powers. It is said, however, in 1 Chitty’s Pl., 181, (Ed. of 1851:) “ In general no action whatever can be supported for any act, however erroneous, if expressly sanctioned by the judgment or direction of one of the superior courts at Westminster, or oven by an inferior magistrate, acting within the scope of his jurisdiction.” Notwithstanding there may be exceptions to the general rule thus stated, yet it is certainly true, that if the inferior judge has jurisdiction, although he may give a wrong judgment, provided the error results from the erroneous conclusion at which he arrives, neither the judge nor the plaintiff in the judgment can be made a trespasser, by virtue of enforcing the same, if the judgment remains unrescinded and unpaid. Page of Chitty above cited. 3 M. & S., 425, 426, 427, 428, Ackerley vs. Parkinson, et al. 3 Wend., 205 , Putnam, vs. Man. 2 Wend., 604, Relyea vs. Ramsay. 7 Wend., 203, 204, Horton vs. Achmoody. 1 Pet.

S. C. Rep., 340, Elliott, et al., vs. Peirsol, et al. In 2 Wils. Rep., 385, Perkin vs. Proctor & Green, a