Henning v. Martin
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 157, April T., 1900, by -defendant, in a suit of Wm. F. Henning against John A. Martin, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dec. T., 1898, No. 479, on verdict for plaintiff. Per Curiam. Appeal from judgment of magistrate. It appears from the record that this action was brought to recover a penalty of 150.00 under the Act of May 26, 1897, P. L. 100, on alleged overcharges for fees by a justice.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 157, April T., 1900, by -defendant, in a suit of Wm. F. Henning against John A. Martin, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dec. T., 1898, No. 479, on verdict for plaintiff. Per Curiam. Appeal from judgment of magistrate. It appears from the record that this action was brought to recover a penalty of 150.00 under the Act of May 26, 1897, P. L. 100, on alleged overcharges for fees by a justice. The court below passed by the other items and confined the -case to the item “ Notice to plaintiff, twenty-five cents.” The notice for which the alderman charged was as follows,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The item in the fee bill of 1898, “written notice in any case,, 25,” evidently means such notice as it is the duty of the justice-to give. It certainly does not include a notice to the plaintiff of the return day of the summons, and that the case will be-heard on that day. In taxing this fee against the defendant in. the case the justice incurred the penalty sued for, and the facts-alleged in the offers would have been no defense.
The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is. affirmed.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Wilson v. BarrettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1903
- Whitmore v. CraigSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1907