Case ID: binn_2/html/0137-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Tilghman C. J. Per. Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Milne against Davis.
    1809. Philadelphia, Monday, December 11.
    for the defendant obtained a rule upon the o shew cause why he should not return the undage charged and received by him in this case.
    The sheriff is poundag-^upon a ca. sa. unless pay^th^money.
    A ca: sa: for 2643 dollars, 16 cents, and interest, was issued against the defendant to September term 1802, to which the sheriff returned “ cepi corpus, and discharged by “ plaintiff on payment of costs, which are paid as per order filed.” In these costs was included the sum of 15/. 14s. lOd, poundage upon the amount in the execution, no part of which had been received by the sheriff.
    
      McKean said there could be no question that the charge bf poundage was illegal, because the fee bill allowed it upon a ca: sa: only ufor receiving and paying” the money. 3 St. Laws 782. made perpetual 15th March 1800, 4 St. Laws 598. In this case the sheriff received nothing under the execution, the defendant having been discharged by the plaintiff.
   Tilghman C. J.

What are his fees for executing a ca: sa:? It is a great hardship upon the sheriff to be liable for an escape, and yet to receive nothing.

M‘Kean. There does not appear to be any fee for executing a ca: sai hut I conceive that the fee bill is the only rule.-

Per. Curiam.

The act of assembly, in giving poundage -upon a ca: sa: confines it to cases where the money has been paid and received. It may be hard upon the sheriff, but we cannot give what the act refuses. Let the rule be made abso» lute.

Hule absolute.