The court of appeal’s finding (and that of the district court) that res judicata bars the plaintiffs claim is erroneous. Payment of a demanded sum to avoid prosecution can hardly be deemed a compromise and settlement.

The district attorney’s permissible fee is $140.00, not the $165.00 he demanded and received by check in that amount payable to him.1 That the District Attorney might have collected more, in addition to the $140.00 due him, than $25.00, that is, $15.00 for each of the three checks “payable to the person or entity that honored the worthless check or cheeks” (Schwegmann’s Super Market in this instance) is no defense to his having collected *1038as his fee $25.00 more than the statute allows.

The judgments of the court of appeal and of the district court are, therefore, reversed. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this per curiam opinion.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL REVERSED; REMANDED TO DISTRICT COURT.

dissenting.

The plaintiff has no standing to complain about the $25 additional charge going to the District Attorney. Under R.S. 16:15F, the amount should have been $45 payable to Schwegmann’s. Only Schwegmann’s is the proper party to complain about the District Attorney’s failure in that regard.

concurring.

The district attorney can collect $15 per worthless check under La.Rev.Stat. 16:15F, but each $15 collection must be payable to the person or entity that honored the worthless check or to an authorized collection agency. The district attorney may not collect the $15 under La.Rev.Stat. 16:15F as a fee for the district attorney’s own account.