Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

15 Neb. 512

Ex parte Johnson

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1884

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1884-01-15

<p>1. Officer De Facto: acts valid. The acts of an officer de facto are not void.</p> <p>2. Office: eight TO hold. The right of an incumbent to hold an office will not be enquired into collaterally. Such can only be done by a direct proceeding instituted for that purpose.</p> <p>3. Habeas Corpus: imprisonment must be unlawful. Where a person has been duly convicted of a misdemeanor and ordered to pay a fine, or in default thereof be committed to the jail of the county until such fine and the costs are paid, he cannot be discharged upon a writ of habeas corpus without first complying with the judgment of the court.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1940

5 state decisions

201884189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Reese, J.

¶1This is an original application for a writ of habeas corpus.

¶2There are two questions presented upon which the writ is sought.

¶31st. It is claimed that the justice of the peace before whom the petitioner was tried and convicted upon a criminal complaint was not in fact such officer; but he claimed, held, and usurped said office without authority of law.

¶4■ It clearly appears from the petition and copies of the docket entries attached, that the justice claims to hold and exercise the functions of his office by right.

¶5It is well settled that the acts of an officer de facto are valid, and it as clearly appears that the justice before whom the petitioner was tried and convicted was, at least, an officer defacto.

¶6Again, the title to an office, by which one holds and exercises the functions of such office, cannot be litigated in this collateral way. It can only be clone by a direct proceeding instituted for that purpose.

¶72d. It is contendedjby the applicant that the mittimus by which he is held is void, it being a command to detain him until the next term of the district court, when it should have been until the fine and costs assessed against him were paid. By reference to the docket entry of the justice, we find the following recital: Said defendant refused to pay the above fine and costs. I therefore issued mittimus committing him to the common jail of said county until said fine and costs be paid, or he be otherwise discharged by due course of law.” The fine and costs have not been paid. The writ is therefore denied. By the court,

¶8Writ denied.

/15/neb/512 · .json · Public domain