Overholtzer v. McMichael
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IÑ error from the Common Pleas of Philadelphia. March 12. This was an. action against the sheriff, for the penalty for demanding and receiving illegal fees. In the sixth count, the plaintiff averred he had demanded and taken $6 as fees for services other than those expressly provided for by the act of Assembly. The facts proved were, that an execution issued against the present plaintiff; and the debt and costs demanded were paid.
Read the full summary
IÑ error from the Common Pleas of Philadelphia. March 12. This was an. action against the sheriff, for the penalty for demanding and receiving illegal fees. In the sixth count, the plaintiff averred he had demanded and taken $6 as fees for services other than those expressly provided for by the act of Assembly. The facts proved were, that an execution issued against the present plaintiff; and the debt and costs demanded were paid. There was no evidence of a levy; but the court, assuming there had been a levy and sale, informed the jury how much the sheriff would be entitled to, thus showing…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
Alsop’s letter and receipts were properly admitted to go to the jury. Their authenticity was conceded by the defendant’s counsel, on the hearing before the alderman; and, being made by an attorney in the due discharge of his functions as official agent, is, of course, effective against the client as proof. The direct connexion of these papers with the subject in controversy,- is sufficiently apparent from their contents, at least in *140combination with the other proofs in the canse, to warrant the submission of them to the jury, as evidence tending to establish the plaintiff’s complaint.
It…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Aechternacht v. WatmoughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
3Cited by2 opinions
- Malone v. MaranoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- McCandless v. Allegheny Bessemer Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893