Ross v. Palmer
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Féb. 19. This was an action against the prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas, to recover the penalty of $50, under the acts of 1821. The declaration, commencing in debt, set out the title of the officer; that his fees were regulated by the act of 1821, and that defendant, on, &c., within six months, &c., “under colour of his office, did charge, demand, and take of, and from the said plaintiff, the sum of $4 25, for certain services alleged to have been done .and…
Read the full summary
Féb. 19. This was an action against the prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas, to recover the penalty of $50, under the acts of 1821. The declaration, commencing in debt, set out the title of the officer; that his fees were regulated by the act of 1821, and that defendant, on, &c., within six months, &c., “under colour of his office, did charge, demand, and take of, and from the said plaintiff, the sum of $4 25, for certain services alleged to have been done .and performed by him, the said defendant, as such officer in a certain suit wherein,” &c., which said sum “ was greater, and other…
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J.
To recover the penalty in the fee bill, the narr. must state the particular services for which the officer took the illegal fee. The narr. charging generally, that the defendant, for services done by him as sheriff, took other and greater fees than were allowed by the act of Assembly, was adjudged incurably defective in Aechternacht v. Watmough, 8 Watts & Serg. 162. Here the judgment was arrested for the same reason which governed that case; namely, that the narr. does not specify the illegal fees, the services *519of the prothonotary, nor the particulars of either the fees or services for which…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Aechternacht v. WatmoughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844