Livermore v. Boswell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of debt, brought to recover of the defendant, who was a deputy sheriff, the penalty of thirty dollars, imposed by tatute 1795, c. 41, § 6, commonly called the fee bill, on any person who shall wilfully and corruptly demand and receive any greater fee or fees, for any of the services in that act enumerated, than are therein allowed and provided.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt, brought to recover of the defendant, who was a deputy sheriff, the penalty of thirty dollars, imposed by tatute 1795, c. 41, § 6, commonly called the fee bill, on any person who shall wilfully and corruptly demand and receive any greater fee or fees, for any of the services in that act enumerated, than are therein allowed and provided. The declaration recites the provision of the statute, that the fees of sheriffs for levying executions in personal actions, shall be, for the first one hundred dollars, four cents for every dollar; for every dollar above that, and…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
If the first objection had been taken upon demurrer, it might have prevailed; but it is cured by a verdict; for the jury could not have convicted the defendant, unless a regular execution, in due form, and issued by a court having jurisdiction, and not then returnable, had been given to them in evidence. The declaration states the parties to, and the date, of the execution, so that a judgment in this action may be pleaded in bar to another action for the same extortion, averring the identity of the judgment and execution.
The second objection is, that there is no allegation of the sum levied…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Gilbert v. President of the Nantucket BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Clapp v. BalchSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1824
- Adams v. LelandMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1828
- Fowler v. TuttleSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1851
- Parkman v. CrosbyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1835