Boyter against Dodsworth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1796 |
| Date | 1796 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 770
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
boyter against dodswoeth. Wednesday May 4th, 1796. Money given to A. and claimed by B. as perquisites of office cannot be recovered by B. in an action for money had and received, unless such perquisites be known and accustomed fees. This was an action for money had and received, brought to recover back fees received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiff as belfry sexton and church sexton of the cathedral of Salisbury, and tried before Mr. J. Buller at the last Salisbury Assizes. The plaintiff claimed under two patents in 1777 from the treasurer of the church, confirmed by the dean and chapter, granting to him for a valuable consideration the above offices for life. The one granted to him the office of belfry sexton " together with the right and full power of keeping keys to and for the doors of the said church, with free liberty of ingress egress and regress into and from the said church for cleansing shewing or otherwise officiating in the same." The other granted to him the office of church sexton " together with all fees wages and profits belonging, &c. in as large and ample a manner as S. C. (his predecessor) &c. had, &c." The plaintiff having proved these patents, and stated that the defendant had lately intruded into these offices, and had received several sums of money from strangers to whom the church had been shewn, Buller J. called on the plaintiff's counsel to prove that there were certain known and accustomed fees annexed to the offices, and that the defendant had received fees such as the legal officer [682] could himself recover in a Court of Law from the persons to whom the church was shewn. It being admitted that there were no such regular fees, but that it was usual for different persons to give what sums they pleased, the plaintiff was nonsuited. A rule having been obtained on a former day, calling on the defendant to shew cause why the nonsuit should not be set aside, and a new trial granted; Gibbs and Burrough were now to have shewn cause against it: but the Court called on Dallas, Jekyll, and Lens, to support it. The question here is, whether the defendant, who intruded into these offices, is not bound in conscience to refund the money he received, and whether the plaintiff is not entitled to that money on principles of equity and natural justice, because if the latter be entitled to this money in equity, he may recover it in an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v Waters
...it was rather a service or employment than an office; but no decision aeems to have been come to on the point. In Boyter v. Dodsworth (6 T. R. 681), it wai held, that an action for money had and received would not lie to recover the perquisites of an office, unless such perquisites were kno......
-
Lawlor v Alton
...Bench. Before WHITESIDE, C. J., O'BRIEN and FITZGERALD, JJ. LAWLOR and ALTON. Boyter v. DodsworthENR 6 T. R. 681. Crosbie v. Hurley Alc. & N. 431. Vaux v. JefferenENR 2 Dyer, 114. Cragg v. NorfolkENRENR 2 Lev. 108; S. C. 1 Mod. 122. Howard v. WoodENR 2 Lev. 245. Arris v. StukeleyENR 2 Mod. ......
-
Bartlet, Gent. one, Company v Downes, Gent. Another, &
...the defendant, as steward, had received fees to the amount of £6 before the commencement of the (a) In thecase of Boyter v. Dodsworth^ 6 T. R. 681, which was an action for money had and received, brought by the sexton of the cathedral of Sahsbury, against the defendant, who had wrongfully (......