Dew, Esq. against Parsons, Gent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 1819 |
| Date | 11 May 1819 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 471
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Steele v. Williams, 1853, 8 Ex. 631. Adopted, Freeman v. Jeffries, 1869, L. R. 4 Ex. 198.
dew, esq. against paksons, gent. Tuesday, May llth, "1819. WKe're a sheriff claimed as of right, upon a warrant issued by him in the execution of his office, a larger fee than he was entitled to by law, and the attorney paid it in ignorance of the law: Held that the latter might maintain money had and received for the excess paid above the legal fee, or might set off the same in an action by the sheriff against him. Held, also, that the sheriff was not entitled to more than a fee of fourpence upon every warrant issued by him. [Referred to, Steele v. Williams, 1853, 8 Ex. 631. Adopted, Freeman v. Jeffries, 1869, L. R. 4 Ex. 198.] Declaration for work and labour, and money counts. Plea, general issue, and notice of set-off. The action was brought by the plaintiff as Sheriff of the county of Hereford, to recover from the defendant, an attorney residing in a neighbouring county, 4s. Id., being 3s. 6d. claimed by the plaintiff, as the fee on a warrant issued by him, in a cause in which the defendant was attorney, and 7d. for the postage of a letter. The defendant, claimed to set off either the whole or part of a sum of 10s. 6d. which his clerk had paid to the plaintiff on the issuing three warrants under one writ against three defendants. The clerk paid it, on its being claimed by the plaintiff, as of right, for the warrants, and on mentioning it to the defendant, the latter disapproved 472 DEW V, PARSONS 2 B. & ALD. 563- of it, and said that it was an imposition. The plaintiff claimed a fee of 3s. 6d. for every warrant when issued for an attorney residing out of his county, and 2s. 6d. when issued for an attorney residing within the county; and it appeared that such fees had for many years usually been paid in the county of Hereford. If he was entitled only to 2s. 6d. on each war-[563]-rant, then there was a balance of one penny due to him; if he was entitled to less than that sum, then he was not entitled to recover. At the trial before Holroyd J. at the last Summer Assizes for the county of Hereford, the plaintiff objected that this was a payment made with a full knowledge of all the facts, though under a misapprehension as to his legal liability, and therefore that it could not be recovered back, and consequently was not the subject of set-off. The learned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vodafone Ltd v The Office of Communications
... ... to the spectrum had, in any event, to be netted off against the loss involved in paying the unlawful ALFs ... 6 ... Such an exercise is straightforward in cases like Dew v Parsons and Steele v Williams where the amount of the ... ...
-
Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
...parties dispute whether or not the facts of the case were withholding cases i.e. within Windeyer J.'s definition. These cases include: 33 Dew v. Parsons (1819) 2 B. & Ald. 562 in which the Sheriff charged an attorney's clerk for issuing warrants a sum greater than the amount he was authoris......
-
Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
...the part of the Crown to the duty being recoverable in the event of its being invalid. So no weight can be attached to the decision. 16In Dew v. Parsons (1819) 2 B. & Ald. 562 an attorney was held entitled to set off against a claim by a sheriff the excess amount which he had paid to the sh......
-
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council
...consideration stems from what Lord Mansfield said in Campbell v Hall, 1 Cowp. 204 and is reflected in the decision in Dew v Parsons, 2B & Ald.562. In Steele v Williams, 8 Ex. 625, 632, Martin B said that the payment in that case was not a voluntary payment but was `more like the case of mon......