City of St. Louis v. Sommers
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Gity Gircuit Court. — Hok. Leeoy B* ValliaNt, Judge. (1) "While the act contains no direct and positive provision for disposing of the fees of justices which may be collected by constables, the intent and meaning of the act clearly appeal’s when taken as an entirety, and its purposes are considered. It was evidently intended that the salary provided should be in lieu of fees, and that the fees should be paid to. the treasurer.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Gity Gircuit Court. — Hok. Leeoy B* ValliaNt, Judge. (1) "While the act contains no direct and positive provision for disposing of the fees of justices which may be collected by constables, the intent and meaning of the act clearly appeal’s when taken as an entirety, and its purposes are considered. It was evidently intended that the salary provided should be in lieu of fees, and that the fees should be paid to. the treasurer. The act takes the place of the general law. Section 16 requires fees collected by the constable to be paid to the clerk, and in no instance paid…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
Tbis is an action in which, the plaintiff, the city of St. Louis, seeks to recover from the defendant, a justice of the peace, the amounts collected by him as fees for solemnizing marriages. The petition is founded on the proposition that under the act of 1891, referring to justices of the peace in cities of three hundred thousand inhabitants, all fees and costs not collected by the constable shall be paid to the clerk; that no fees shall be received by the justice; and that all fees collected “for services of the ..justice” shall be turned over to the city. The petition alleges the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Smith v. Pettis CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1940
- County of San Diego v. BryanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Ward v. County of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1944
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports2008