There is no distinction between a judge acting in court and acting judicially out of court, that is, in chambers; 3 Moore, P. C. 52. See Moffett v. Boydstun, 4 Kan. App. 406, 46 Pac. 24.
A judge cannot be held liable for delay in deciding a cause; but if it be wilful and cor rupt, it is ground for impeachment ; and mandamus will lie to compel him to perform his duty; Wyatt v. Arnot, 7 Cal. App. 221, 94 Pac. 86.
"A judge of a court not of record is not liable for any injury sustained which is the result of an honest error of judgment in a matter wherein the court has jurisdiction, and when the act done is not of a purely ministerial nature." The rule is thus stated in 15 Am. L. Rev. 444. See further an ar ticle in Ir. L. T. and Sol. J., Nov. 13, 1880; 6 Am. Dec. 303; .Lange v. Benedict, 29 Am. Rep. 80, note; Stewart v. Cooley, 23 Am. Rep. 690, note. See CORAM NON JUDICE.
The subject of the liability of a judge to an action is fully considered in Taaffe v. Downes, 3 Moore, P. C. 41, and Yates v. Lansing, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 283, both cited in Randall v. Brigham, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 523, supra.
One circuit judge has no power to review and revise the action of another circuit judge; Warren v. Simon, 16 S. C. 362; nor has a judge when without the state, power to grant an injunction; Price v. Bayless, 131 I_nd. 437, 31 N. E. 88.
The acts of a judge de facto are not open to collateral attack ; Ball v. U. S., 140 U. S. 118, 11 Sup. Ct. 761, 35 L. Ed. 377.
A judge who acts corruptly may be im peached; Yates v. Lansing, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 282 ; Cora. v. Addison, 4 Dall. (U. S.) 225, 1 L. Ed. 810.
A judge is not bound, unless by statute, to file a memorandum of his decision, and, if filed, it is not a part of the record unless he makes it so; Phcenix Ins. Co. v. Carey, 80 Conn. 426, 68 Atl. 993.
When a lawyer becomes a judge, his right to act as an attorney is temporarily suspend ed; Perry v. Bush, 46 Fla. 242, 35 South. 225. He may appear for himself ; Hegeman v. Johnson, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 202. In some states circuit judges are permitted to prac tice in circuit courts other than their O'Hare v. R. Co., 139 III. 151, 28 N. E. 923 ; Morton v. R. Co., 81 Mich. 423, 46 N. W. 111.
A court cannot itself decide as to its pow er to act or to exist as a court ; Hill v. Tarver, 130 Ala. 595, 30 South. 499 ; contra, Swan v. Talbot, 152 Cal. 142, 94 Pac. 238, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1066; State v. Banta, 122 La. 235, 47 South. 538.
An appellate court will not open a decree in a patent case for the introduction of new ly discovered evidence because it had failed to "discover the notation of the mortgage in the abstract contained in the file wrapper and did not thereupon reverse the decree," it not having been called to the attention of the court by counsel; Moneyweight Scale Co. v. Scale Co., 199 Fed. 905, 118 C. C. A. 235.
It has been observed that a judge's func tion is to give a good legal reason for the conclusions of common sense. Lord Esher, quoted in 16 L. Q. R. 3, n.
Under the Act of Settlement in England (1701) it was provided that the judges should hold office during good behavior, sub ject to removal upon the addresses of both houses of parliament, and that their salaries should be ascertained and established.
See, generally, JUDICIAL POWER ; JUDGE MADE LAW ; FALSE IMPRISONMENT ; OPEN COURT; GOOD BEHAVIOR; INCOMPETENCY.
For a list of judges of the United States supreme court, see SUPREME COURT; also for a list of lord chancellors, see CHANCEL Los; and for a list of English judges, see L. R. 12 App. Cas.
Under the Roman law a judge, by whose act or default in deciding or conducting a lawsuit, a party to the suit was injured, was liable to an action for damages, the amount of which was left to the discretion of the judge. Such action was regarded as quasi-delicNal, because it was available, not only in cases of deliberately unfair deci sions, but also in cases of less serious errors committed by the judge, as overlooking the day fixed for trial or disregarding the rules of law concerning adjournment and the like (imprudentia judicis). In such a case he was termed jUdem qui litem suam fecit (who makes the suit his own). The action in question, however, could not be taken on the ground that the judgment was unjust in sub stance; Sohm, Inst. Rom. L. 330; Mack. Rom. L. § 606; Morey, Rom. L. 383. See