Jones v. Loving

55 Miss. 109
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 55 Miss. 109 (Jones v. Loving) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jones v. Loving, 55 Miss. 109 (Mich. 1877).

Opinion

Chalmers, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff, late major of the town of Beauregard, brings-this suit against the defendants, late aldermen of said town, to recover from them, individually, damages alleged to have been sustained by him from the passage by them of an ordinance which, as he alleges, “.unlawfully and maliciously deprived him of his legal rights, fees, privileges, and emoluments, and of his office of mayor as aforesaid.”

It is impossible to perceive upon what theory such a suit-can be maintained. If the ordinance was within the authority of the board, certainly the individual members of it cannot be made personally liable for a mistaken exercise of their powers ; nor is it possible in such a case to inquire into the motives-which prompted their action. By the 3d section of the Charter of the town, the board are constituted a legislative body, and given power ‘ ‘ to make all needful laws and ordinances for the good government of said town and its inhabitants.”

It certainly cannot be argued that the motives of the individual members of a legislative assembly, in voting for a particular law, can be inquired into, and its supporters be made personally liable, upon an allegation that they acted maliciously towards the person aggrieved by the passage of tlielaw. Whenever the officers of a municipal corporation are-vested with legislative powers, they hold and exercise them for the public good, and are clothed with all the immunities of government, and are exempt from all liability for their mistaken use. 1 Am. Ld. Cas., side p. 653; County Comrs. v. Ducket, 20 Md. 469; Borough of Freeport v. Marks, 9 Pa. St. 253.

If, on the contrary, the aldermen of the town of Beauregard, exceeded the measure of their authority in passing the ordinance in question, it was a mere brutum f ulmén, and could' not for one moment have deprived the plaintiff of any of thq[112]*112•privileges, emoluments, or fees of Ms office. If he chose voluntarily to yield obedience to a void law, it was Ms own folly, for which the courts can afford Mm no relief by awarding damages against the individuals voting for the ordinance.

Judgment sustaining demurrer to declaration affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bernadine Kent v. Ohio House of Representatives
33 F.4th 359 (Sixth Circuit, 2022)
Bond v. Marion County Bd. of Sup'rs
807 So. 2d 1208 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2001)
Bogan v. Scott-Harris
523 U.S. 44 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Bruce v. Riddle
631 F.2d 272 (Fourth Circuit, 1980)
T & M HOMES, INC. v. Township of Mansfield
393 A.2d 613 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1978)
Roberts v. Williams
302 F. Supp. 972 (N.D. Mississippi, 1969)
Bricker v. Sims
259 S.W.2d 661 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1953)
Gottschalck v. Shepperd
260 N.W. 573 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1935)
Ross v. Gonzales
29 S.W.2d 437 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Klauder v. Cox
145 A. 290 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Klauder v. Cox
10 Pa. D. & C. 613 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1928)
State ex rel. Wells v. City of Charleston
114 S.E. 382 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1922)
Incorporated Village of Hicksville v. Blakeslee
103 Ohio St. (N.S.) 508 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1921)
Commonwealth v. Kenneday
82 S.W. 237 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1904)
Russell v. Tate
52 Ark. 541 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 Miss. 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-loving-miss-1877.