Bussier v. Pray
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Case Stated. THE plaintiff was inspector of salted provisions for the city, county, and port of Philadelphia, and brought this suit against the defendant, to recover certain fees for repacking salted beef; and the question submitted to the Court was, upon a case stated, whether the plaintiff, besides his fee for inspecting and branding, Was entitled to a. fee . of one shilling for repacking, performed in the month of November, 1819. . relied, on the provisions of the Acts of…
Read the full summary
Case Stated. THE plaintiff was inspector of salted provisions for the city, county, and port of Philadelphia, and brought this suit against the defendant, to recover certain fees for repacking salted beef; and the question submitted to the Court was, upon a case stated, whether the plaintiff, besides his fee for inspecting and branding, Was entitled to a. fee . of one shilling for repacking, performed in the month of November, 1819. . relied, on the provisions of the Acts of Assembly of the 18th of August, 4727, the 12th of March, 1789, the 20th of April,- 1795, and the 28th °f March, 1814,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was.delivered by
Gibson J.
The 26th section of the Act of 1814, is decisive against the claim of the plaintiff. It directs, that if any officer shall take any other, or greater, fees, than is provided for ; or shall take fees where the services shall not have been already rendered ; or “ shall charge or demand any fee other than those expressly provided for by this Act,’5 such officer shall forfeit, &c. ; and by the twenty-second section, the fees of the Inspector of salt provisions are thus designated ; “ inspecting and branding salt provisions for the port-of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hatch v. MannCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1835