Prilliman v. City of Canon City
| Decision Date | 03 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 19232,19232 |
| Citation | 360 P.2d 812,146 Colo. 159 |
| Parties | Willie Dean PRILLIMAN, Plaintiff in Error, v. CITY OF CANON CITY, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
H. R. Harward, Canon City, for plaintiff in error.
J. Harrison Hawthorne, Canon City, for defendant in error.
On March 3, 1958, Prilliman was summoned to appear in the municipal court of Canon City to answer a charge or complaint of driving an automobile on the streets of Canon City while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He entered a plea of guilty. A fine of $125 then imposed was paid by Prilliman.
Very shortly thereafter, the ordinance which Prilliman was charged with violating and to which charge he had entered a plea of guilty was declared void by this Court, in the case of City of Canon City v. Merris, 137 Colo. 169, 323 P.2d 614. (Decided March 17, 1958--rehearing denied April 14, 1958).
On April 1, 1958, Prilliman instituted suit against Canon City in the justice court, seeking to recover back the $125 which he had paid as a fine. He was denied relief and on appeal to the county court a like result obtained.
Prilliman is here by writ of error seeking reversal of the judgment of the county court.
Prilliman pleaded guilty to the charge in the municipal court and made a voluntary payment in satisfaction of the fine imposed. It is fair to assume that he paid his money under a mistake of law--believing the Canon City ordinancy was valid and that lawful steps could be taken to collect the fine assessed against him. In this he was mistaken--clearly a mistake of law.
A voluntary payment of a fine assessed pursuant to an unlawful or void ordinance cannot be recovered, either from the municipality or from the officer of such municipality to whom it was paid.
The general rule is set forth in 70 C.J.S. Payment § 156(c):
'Money paid under an unconstitutional or invalid statute or ordinance, without any circumstances of compulsion is paid under a mistake of law, and so cannot be recovered * * *.'
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skyland Metro. v. Mountain West Enterprise
...the voluntary payment rule. We are not persuaded. The voluntary payment rule has been adopted in Colorado. See Prilliman v. City of Canon City, 146 Colo. 159, 360 P.2d 812 (1961); Davis v. City & County of Denver, 120 Colo. 186, 207 P.2d 1185 (1949); Rector v. City & County of Denver, 122 P......
-
Rector v. City and County of Denver, 03CA0857.
...plaintiffs' voluntary payment of fines and late fees constituted final judgments that precluded recovery under Prilliman v. City of Canon City, 146 Colo. 159, 360 P.2d 812 (1961). The court also dismissed the FDCPA, the CFDCPA, and the CCPA claims, concluding that the parking ordinances did......
-
Berg v. City of Chicago
...from recovering an illegal fine or penalty. Carver v. United States, 111 U.S. 609, 4 S.Ct. 561, 28 L.Ed. 540. In Prilliman v. City of Canon City, 146 Colo. 159, 360 P.2d 812, a suit was brought by a motorist to recover from the city a fine he had paid for driving while intoxicated in violat......
-
Van v. LLR, Inc.
...on the rule that a payment voluntarily made pursuant to a mistake of law is not recoverable. See, e.g., Prilliman v. City of Canon City, 146 Colo. 159, 360 P.2d 812 (1961). We are satisfied that this rule should not be adopted in this jurisdiction. In our view, the principles of equity favo......
-
Neither Briefed Nor Argued
...open. I climbed aboard and headed back to the office. ______________ Footnotes: 1. There is no such Act. 2. Prillman v. Ca=C3=B1on City, 360 P.2d 812 (Colo. 1961). 3. Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1983). 4. Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180, 224 (1997). 5. Gr......