Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 Tex. 206

Orton v. Engledow

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1852

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1852-07-01

Error from Nacogdoches. This action was brought by the appellee to recover of the appellant, as chief justice of the county of Nacogdoches, the penalty denounced by the 20th section of the act of 1848 “regulating fees of office.” The petition alleged that on the — day of-, 1850, the plaintiff was ad-ministratrix of the estate of John Engledow, deceased; that she then made a final settlement of her administration in the County Court; that the defendant, as chief justice of…

Decided 1852-07-01

Wheelee,, J.

¶1Of the errors assigned it will be necessary to notice only that which brings in question the overruling of the motion in arrest of judgment.

Note 47. — The State v. Williams, post, 206.

¶2The provision of the statute upon which this suit is founded is, “that if any of the officers herein named shall demand and receive any other or higher fees than prescribed in this act for any of the services herein mentioned he shall be liable to the party aggrieved for fourfold the fees so unlawfully demanded and received.” &c. (Hart. Dig., art. 1376.) The offense upon commission of which the liability is incurred consists in demanding and receiving “other and higher fees than are prescribed in this act for any of the services herein mentioned.” But the money received in this case is not alleged to have been and it is shown that it was not received for any of the services mentioned in the act. The receipt of the money therefore, though unauthorized, did not constitute the offense created by the statute. The essential ingredient that it be received for some one of the services mentioned in the statute was wanting. The statute is penal aud must be construed strictly.

¶3The estate was not subject to the payment of this money by any law in force at the time. An action would doubtless lie in behalf of the estate to recover it back. But this action is brought by the plaintiff in her own right. She alleges that she paid the money as administratrix; and she now brings an action to recover it back in her own right. She paid not her own money but that of the estate. If permitted to maintain this action she would be enabled by the judgment of the court to convert and appropriate the money so paid to her own use.

¶4The facts alleged in the petition do not constitute a case within the provision of the statute. The defendant did not incur the penal consequences denounced by it, and consequently the action cannot be maintained to recover the penalty consequent upon an infraction of its provisions.

¶5Nor does the petition disclose a right of action in the plaintiff to recover back the money paid. On the contrary the facts averred are inconsistent with the existence of any right of action in the plaintiff.

¶6The objections to the petition go to the right of action, and were well taken by motion in arrest of judgment.

¶7The judgment must be reversed and the case dismissed.

¶8Reversed and dismissed.

/8/tex/206 · .json · Public domain