Legal Opinion

Hendershott v. County of Fillmore

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 20, 1891PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Fillmore county, refusing a new trial.after a trial by Farmer, J., and judgment of $3.31 and costs ordered for plaintiff. The action was an appeal from the disallowance, by the county board, of an item of $3.15 for fees of plaintiff, as constable, for serving a subpoena on a witness for defendant in a criminal case before a justice of the peace, in which a trial by jury resulted in an acquittal.

1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.

The question in this case is the right of the respondent, a constable, to collect his fees from the appellant county for serving a subpoena upon a witness for the- defendant in a criminal case, pending in justice’s court, in which case the prosecution failed to convict. It is conceded that at common law no such right exists, but the claim is made that appellant’s liability has been fixed by the terms of Gen. St. 1878, c. 70, § 44, which, with the head-note of the editor, placed in italics by the writer hereof, reads as follows: • “Fees of prosecution paid out of county treasury, when. When…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hutt v. Board of SupervisorsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1865

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United Bank & Trust Co. v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  2. State v. LemonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API