Reid v. Hood
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, at Pendleton, October Term, 1819. The defendant, Burdine, being a justice of the peace, had issued an attachment at the suit of the other defendant, Hood, against the plaintiff, Reid, by virtue of which the plaintiff’s horse, saddle, bridle, &c., were taken from him, and out of his immediate possession. The proceeding was founded on that clause of the Attachment Act of 1785, P. L. 3G8, 1 Brev.
Read the full summary
Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, at Pendleton, October Term, 1819. The defendant, Burdine, being a justice of the peace, had issued an attachment at the suit of the other defendant, Hood, against the plaintiff, Reid, by virtue of which the plaintiff’s horse, saddle, bridle, &c., were taken from him, and out of his immediate possession. The proceeding was founded on that clause of the Attachment Act of 1785, P. L. 3G8, 1 Brev. Dig. 39,1 which allows an attachment to be issued on oath, by the creditor, that he believes his debtor intends to remove his effects, returnable to the next Court.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
RichaRDson, J.
The first ground requires this Court to consider whether a judicial officer is liable for any injury which may come to a party, by reason of any error of judgment which the officer may have committed by his adjudication, in the trial before him ? There is no view which can be taken of this inquiry which does not answer it in the negative.
The essential and characteristic distinction between a judicial and a ministerial officer, is, that the former is to give judgment, which requires perfect freedom of opinion ; but the latter is to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State ex rel. Wilkinson v. LaneSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913
- Lide v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1939