Home >> Bouvier's Law Dictionary >> Equal Protection Of The to Family Arrangement >> Extortion


cr, officer and people

EXTORTION. The unlawful taking by any officer, by color of his office, of any mon ey or thing of value that is not due to him, or more than is due, or before it is due. 4 Bla. Corn. 141; Com. v. Saulsbury, 152 Pa. 554, 25 AU. 610; 1 Hawk. PI. Cr. c. 68, s. 1; 1 Russ. Cr.* 144; 2 Bish. Cr. L. 390; U. S. v. Deaver, 14 Fed. 595.

At common law, any oppression by color of right ; but technically the taking of mon ey by an officer, by reason of his office, where none at all was due, or when it was not yet due. The obtaining of money by force or fear is not extortion; People v. Barondess, 61 Hun 571, 16 N. Y. Supp. 436; Whart. Cr. L. 833.

In a large sense the term includes any oppression under color of right ; but it is generally and con stantly used in the more limited technical sense above given.

The incumbent of an office, which it was attempted to create by an unconstitutional statute, cannot be guilty of extortion, as he is neither a de jure nor a de facto officer ; Kitby v. State, 57 N. J. L. 320, 31 Atl. 213.

To constitute extortion, there must be the receipt of money or something of value; the taking a promissory note which is void is not sufficient to make an extortion; Corn. v. Cony, 2 Mass. 523; Corn. v. Pease, 16 Mass. 93. See Bacon, Abr.; Co. Litt. 168. It is ex tortion and oppression for an officer to take money for the performance of his duty, even though it be in the exercise of a discretion ary power ; 2 Burr. 927. See People v. Whaley, 6 Cow. 661; Heiser v. Pott, 3 Pa. 183; Com. v. Saulsbury, 152 Pa. 554, 25 Atl. 610; Com. v. Bagley, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 279; 4 Cox, Cr. Cas. 387. See Brackenridge v. State, 27 Tex. App. 513, 11 S. W. 630, 4 L. R. A. 360 ; People v. Barondess, 133 N. Y. 649, 31 N. E. 240.