Mattoon v. Kidd
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The plaintiff, as sheriff of the county of Hampshire, having appointed the defendant, Thomas Kidd, to be one of his deputies, took from him, and the other defendant, a bond, conditioned, among other things, that Kidd should pay over to him one quarter part of all fees which he should receive as a deputy sheriff. The present action was debt upon that bond.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff, as sheriff of the county of Hampshire, having appointed the defendant, Thomas Kidd, to be one of his deputies, took from him, and the other defendant, a bond, conditioned, among other things, that Kidd should pay over to him one quarter part of all fees which he should receive as a deputy sheriff. The present action was debt upon that bond. The defendants, in a plea in bar, set forth the provision of the statute of 1795, c. 41, commonly called the fee bill, which declares that “ no sheriff shall demand or receive from any of his deputies, more than at the rate of twenty-five…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The plea in bar, in this case, presents a question on the construction of the statute of 1795, c. 41, commonly known by the name of the fee bill. The clause in question provides “that no sheriff shall demand or receive, from any of his deputies, more *29than at the rate of twenty-five per cent, on the amount of fees for travel and service.” The defendants contend that the word service is to be taken strictly, as the service of a writ or other precept. If this is the true construction, then either the sheriff is to receive no part of other fees which may be received by his deputies;…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ferris v. AdamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1851
- Burnham v. McQuestenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1869
- Goldthwaite v. M'WhorterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1834