Walker v. Ham
Superior Court of New Hampshire
An officer is not liable to a penalty for taking fees, on account of services, for which no fees are enumerated in the fee bill. But where he takes excessive fees for such services, he is liable to refund the excess in an action for money had and received. A penalty is incurred only when he takes more than the prescribed amount for particular services, for which fees are given in the fee bill.
Read the full summary
An officer is not liable to a penalty for taking fees, on account of services, for which no fees are enumerated in the fee bill. But where he takes excessive fees for such services, he is liable to refund the excess in an action for money had and received. A penalty is incurred only when he takes more than the prescribed amount for particular services, for which fees are given in the fee bill. The sum allowed for the service of a writ is a compensation for leaving a summons, for a bare arrest, or for a seizure of property and the return of the writ; but not for any extraordinary expense in…
1Opinion of the Court
Woodbury, J.,
pro curia.
This action is founded on the 1st section of our statute of <he 6th of December, 1796, and of an additional act, passed June 19th, A. D. 1813.(1)
The material parts of those statutes are, that “ for the “ service of a writ of attachment with or without summons, “ twenty-three cents for each defendant” is allowed to the officer ; and “ that if any person or persons, in any office re- “ cognized by the laws of this state, shall hereafter demand “ any greater fee or fees for any services, than what are by “ law prescribed for such services, he or they shall, on con- “…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Runnells v. FletcherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
- Gale v. ParrotSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1817
3Cited by2 opinions
- Waldron v. TuttleSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1827
- Osgood v. BlakeSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1850