
    [Philadelphia,
    February 12, 1833.]
    HARRISON against ELLMAKFR.
    IK ERROR.
    Under the Fee Bill of the 28th of March, 1814, the Recorder of Deeds can only charge thirty-seven and a half cents for a certificate and seal, and cannot add to it a charge of twelve and a half cents for a search made to enable him to give the certificate. If he exacts payment of such double charge, he incurs the penalty of fifty dollars imposed by the 26th section of the Fee Bill.
    This was a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of the County of Philadelphia, in an action originally brought by the defendant in error, Levi Ellmaker, against the plaintiff in error, John Harrisun then Recorder of Deeds of the City and County of Philadelphia, to recover the penalty of fifty dollars imposed by the 26th section of the act of 28th of March, 1814, entitled “ An act to establish a fee bill.” 1 Purd. Dig. 311.
    The section referred to. declares, that “ if any officer whatsoever, shall take greater or other fees than is hereinbefore expressed and limited, for any service to be done by him after the first of September next, in his office, or if any officer shall charge, or demand and take any of the fees hereinbefore ascertained, where the business for which such fees are chargeable, shall not have been actually done and performed, or if any officer shall charge or demand any fee for any service or services, other than those expressly provided for by this act, such officer shall forfeit and pay to the party injured, fifty dollars, to be recovered as debts of the same amount are recoverable,” &c.
    The alderman gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, where a case, in the nature of a special verdict, was stated' for the opinion of the Court, which, in substance, was as follows:
    Ry the 18th section of the fee bill, of the 28th March, 1814, {Purd. Dig. 309, 310), the Recorder of Deeds is authorised to charge for “ certificate and seal, thirty-seven and a half cents,” and for “ every search of record where no other, service is performed for which fees are given, twelve and a half cents.” The plaintiff below, on the 12th of July 1821, requested from the defendant, then Recorder of Deeds for the City and County of Philadelphia, a certificate under seal of the record of an assignment to himself and Jonathan Merchand by Franklin Rising. The certificate was given to him by the defendant, who demanded for it fifty cents, as for the following services, viz. “ for search twelve and a half cents, for certificate thirty-seven and a half- cents.” The plaintiff refused to pay the fees thus demanded and offered to pay thirty-seven and a half cents, but the defendant insisted on his right by law to receive the amount he demanded, upon which the plaintiff paid it, and took from the defendant a receipt in these words :
    “ Received July 12th, 1821, from Mr. Levi Ellmaker, fifty cents for search and certificate, Franklin Rising’s assignment.”
    The Court of Common Pleas having given judgment in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant sued out a writ of error, and assigned for error, “ That according to the true construction of the act of assembly referred to, the defendant below is not liable to the penalty of fifty dollars claimed to be recovered from him in this suit.”
    
      J. Randall, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Henderson, for the defendant in error.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Huston J.

This matter is too plain for argument. When a person applies to an officer to see a record, and only wishes to see it, or know if there is such a record, the fee bill gives the officer the fee for a search. When a person applies to an officer for a copy of a record, or a certificate of the date of a record, the officer must find the record, before he can make the copy, or give the certificate required. This search is for his own use and benefit; he makes the copy or gives the certificate; and is paid for so doing, and has no right to charge for a search. The words of the act are plain, cannot be mistaken, and ought not to be evaded.

Judgment affirmed.  