Nunnelly v. Road Commissioners
Opinion of the Court
In this case the plaintiff had obtained a certiorari, against the Road Commissioners, which certiorari had been sustained by the court and an execution for costs issued thereon, which had been levied upon the property of the defendants. They have filed their affidavit of illegality in which they contend that they are not liable in their individual capacity to pay the costs which have accrued upon the certiorari, and allege that they have no public funds in their hands as Road Commissioners, out of which the fi.fa. can be satisfied.
Question submitted for the decision of the Convention, is, are the defendants liable to pay the said fi.fa. out of their individual property ?
By the Convention. There is no statute law upon the subject, and no principle of the common law of England, now recollected, is applicable to the case. The Commissioners of Roads are officers who render services without compensation, and therefore ought to be subjected to no inconvenience, injury or expense, for the discharge of duties which are gratuitous, unless it is shown that they have acted corruptly, or with intention to oppress. There is no allegation of that kind in this case. They are therefore in contemplation of law presumed to have acted correctly. In the absence oí ail legal provisions, applicable .to the case, it is not the duty, nor is it within the power of the courts to subject these Commissioners to the payment of the costs in this case. If the view presented with regard to the law be correct, that of expediency strictly coincides with the law. In courts of justice, reasons, ah inconvenienti, are seldom allowed to have operation. Wherever the law can be ascertained, it is sufficient for courts of justice that, “ ita lex scripta est.” In the present case the lavv and reason are strictly coincident. In this State the pub-
The affidavit of illegality must be sustained.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.