Perce v. Hallett
Decision Date | 11 October 1881 |
Parties | WARREN R. PERCE v. WILLIAM B. W. HALLETT. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
A statute which prescribes entry fees and continuance fees for suits at law and in equity does not violate the provision in the Constitution of Rhode Island which declares that every person within this State " ought to obtain right and justice freely and without purchase; completely and without denial; promptly and without delay."
This constitutional provision prohibits gratuities or exactions given or demanded to influence legal proceedings, not moderate fees such as are prescribed by the statutory fee table.
The interpretation of this provision is to be drawn from its history.
EXCEPTIONS to the Court of Common Pleas.
Warren R. Perce, pro se ipso .
William B. W. Hallett, pro se ipso .
This case comes up from the Court of Common Pleas on exceptions to an order of that court dismissing the action, on motion of the clerk at the defendant's request, for nonpayment of the entry fee prescribed by statute.[1] The plaintiff contends that the statute is void for repugnance to the Constitution of the State, art. 1, § 5, which declares that every person within the State " ought to obtain right and justice freely and without purchase; completely and without denial; promptly and without delay; conformably to the law." He contends that to exact the fee is to sell justice. The argument is cogent, and if we were at liberty to regard simply the language of the provision, might be convincing. The provision has a history which sheds light on its meaning. It was borrowed from Magna Charta, and in England the generality of jurists and legislators have supposed and acted on the supposition that it does not prohibit such fees. Reeves' History of the English Law Finlason's ed. vol. 1, pp. 284-287, and notes. The better opinion is that it was designed to abolish, not fixed fees prescribed for the purposes of revenue, but the fines which were anciently paid to expedite or delay law proceedings and procure favor. See Thompson's Essay on Magna Charta, p 230. The character of those fines is copiously exemplified by Madox in the twelfth chapter of his History of the Exchequer.[2] They appear to have been arbitrary exactions, often outrageously oppressive. Madox concludes his twelfth chapter with the following language: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kennedy v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc.
...(1972), appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 1094, 93 S.Ct. 704, 34 L.Ed.2d 678 (1972); Lewis v. Smith, 21 R.I. 324, 43 A. 542 (1899); Perce v. Hallett, 13 R.I. 363 (1881); Spalding v. Bainbridge, 12 R.I. 244 (1879); Conley v. Other cases of this court that have dealt with art. I, sec. 5, of the Rhod......
-
Bauer v. Shepard
...it to others.'" State ex rel. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Laramore, 175 Ind. 478, 94 N.E. 761, 763 (1911) (quoting Perce v. Hallett, 13 R.I. 363, 1881 WL 4157, at *1 (R.I. 1881)); see also id. ("This provision of our Constitution, while getting its substance, as similar provisions in other sta......
-
Waite v. Utah Labor Comm'n
...every person"—and finding that the inability to pay transcript fee due to indigence cannot bar from having case decided); Perce v. Hallett , 13 R.I. 363, 364 (1881) ("The provision has a history which sheds light on its meaning. It was borrowed from Magna Charta, and in England the generali......
-
Malin v. County of Lamoure
... ... that they are uniform, are reasonable, and have a reasonable ... relation to the services rendered. See Perce v ... Hallett, 13 R.I. 363; Merrill v. Bowler, 20 ... R.I. 226, 38 A. 114; Northern Counties Trust Co. v ... Sears, 30 Ore. 388, 35 L.R.A ... ...