|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MCKIM v. ODOM... 423
exclusively to the use of the process of distringas or sequestration,
as the only means of enforcing an answer, is most manifest. To
prevent this injury in a case which occurred in England, in the
year 1776, where the warden of a body politic refused to affix the
corporate seal to its answer, the Court of Chancery, in mercy to
the acquiescing parties, staid its process of contempt, by which
the whole corporation at large would have been affected and pun-
ished, by a seizure of their property, until the acquiescing mem-
bers of the body politic could obtain from the Court of King's
Bench, a mandamus to compel the contumacious warden to affix
the seal to its answer, (j)
It is one of the most valued principles of our government, and
of the common law, that all men hold their situations, in this coun-
try, upon the terms of submitting to have their conduct examined
and measured by that standard which the law has established; (k)
and that all trustees or fiduciaries appointed for the public good,
or who are entrusted with the management of the affairs of a body
politic, should be within reach of the law; and in some form or
other responsible, and made to perform their duty. Upon this
ground, where the justices of an inferior court, or the officers of a
corporation, fail to give judgment, or to discharge their duty, they
may be compelled to do so by a mandamus. The superintending
authority does not by its mandamus deprive them of any of their
discretionary power, but merely commands them to execute their
duty, to render judgment, or to make answer as they may think
proper, to the end that the individual may have an appeal, or pro-
secute his suit to a final decision, or obtain the relief he seeks, (f)
Why should not an immediate power, to this extent, in the shape of
an attachment against the person, be vested in every court of jus-
tice, before which a public officer, or a body politic, may be called
as a defendant? The important concerns of the public, or the
rights of individuals, or of corporations, most certainly ought not
to be suffered to be delayed, obstructed, or destroyed by the mere
indolence, caprice, or perverseness of any one.
These difficulties and inconveniences are sufficient to shew, that
a body politic ought not, in any case, to be made a defendant,
unless it is indispensably necessary to do so. But there are in-
stances, many of which have already occurred in this court, and of
which this suit affords an example, where, as the law now stands,
(j) Rex v. Windham, Cowp, 377.—(k) Sutton v. Johnstone, 1 T. R. 504,—
(I) Bac. Abr. tit. Mandamus, D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
