¶1delivered the opinion of the court.
¶2' This case is an embarrassing one, in view of the multiplied and conflicting opinions which have been entertained concerning ministerial and judicial acts ; but after considerable reflection, our conclusion has been to let the judgment of the circuit court stand.
¶3The difficulties in drawing a line of distinction between judicial and ministerial acts, in reference to the duties which our statutes have confided to justices of the peace, are not readily removed; and, upon principles of public policy as well as equity, we are not disposed, in determining their responsibilities, to adopt the rules which have been applied to clerks and sheriffs and other mere ministerial officers. The clerical and judicial acts of justices are mingled together from the beginning to the end of a suit, and it is not easy to separate the one from the other. Great inconvenience, we also apprehend, would arise from holding a justice responsible for a blunder in issuing an execution where his intentions have been altogether pure. The office, at least in the great majority of instances, is not one attended with large gains; nor can it generally be relied on for a mere subsistence, but must necessarily be filled by persons whose principal pursuit will not allow an appropriation of much time .or labor to the attainment of accurate legal information, even upon those subjects with which they have officially to deal. That the justice is required or allowed to be his own clerk, is not a sufficient reason to divest him of his judicial charac*423ter whenever he performs an act, which a clerk, under other circumstances, would do. We have not been able to see, •therefore, that in issuing an execution he is to be held responsible as a mere ministerial officer, but our inclination is to hold all his acts, which from the beginning to the end of a suit the law requires him to perform, as judicial and involving only that responsibility which attends all judicial officers. Judgment affirmed.