Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1819

Runnells v. Fletcher

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided June 15, 1819

15 Mass. 525

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Thomas Robertson (AMENDED OPINION) (D.C. Cir. 2024)
United States v. Thomas Robertson (D.C. Cir. 2023)
State v. . Pritchard (N.C. 1890)
United States v. Joseph Fischer (D.C. Cir. 2023)
State v. Wainwright (Wash. 1908)
State v. Oden (Ind. Ct. App. 1894)
Cleaveland v. State (Ala. 1859)
Walker v. Ham (Superior Court of New Hampshire 1820)
Dunlap v. Curtis (Mass. 1813)
Stilson v. Tobey (Mass. 1807)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Curia.

To subject an officer to the penalty prescribed by the statute, it must be proved that the sum, alleged to * have been extorted, was demanded as a fee for some official duty. He must have wilfully and corruptly demanded and received other or greater fees than the law allows.

*467By the facts reported in this case, if any offence has been committed, it is not against the statute on which the action is brought, but must be extortion at common law. (a) The excess demanded was not as and for fees of service, but as a compensation for labor and trouble attending a supposed injury which happened before. The action cannot, therefore, be maintained upon these facts. (b)

New trial granted.

Commonwealth vs. Bayley, 7 Pick. 279.

Dunlop vs. Curtis, 10 Mass. Rep. 210. — Shattuck vs. Wood, 1 Pick. 171. — Commonwealth vs. Shed, 1 Mass. Rep. 227.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.