| OCR Text |
Show JODGE BARTGH'S salary. He is Entitled to It ?tf as Pro-fcale Pro-fcale Ja"0e. TEKKITOICIIL SUPREME COUHT j There I'au Be X Ssf eVinteud-1 rut f tttty Affaire. feday the Supn-me Court of the Territory of Utah rendered a decision deci-sion on the application of G. V. Kartell, prolate Judge of Salt iike County, to be iiid talary as ttuper-iutendent ttuper-iutendent of county affair:. The opinion was deilfisttl by Judge AnJerwu, rsTdfiowK IctStJ Supreme Court of the Tcj-rftary Tcj-rftary of Utah. George V. Eartch, apellant, v. John C Cutler, clerk of tlw. ounty court of Salt I at GttuVs, Utah, respondent. This If anttiglnal proceeding lu this mtit, in which the plaintiff imys that a writ of mandate issue herein, against the defendant as clerk of the county court of Salt Lake County, rtquiring him to issue is-sue to plaiutitl it warrant on the trea.-urer of raid couhI- for $205.33, as salary, alleged to W due plaintiff for services rendered in the month of Deccm'Jcr, IS9,3s''Suirintend-ciitnf IS9,3s''Suirintend-ciitnf County Affairs." The plalntill alleges in liii petition that he is, and since October 23rd, ISS9, has been tho legal and acting probate judge of Salt I-nkc Couuty, and as such probaf" Jf's'. a member of the couuty court of said 'coEHfty-. That on the 19th day of ovemlier, 1SS9, by rc?T'UIonof the county coutt, he was apjiolnted the (leriutendent of couuty affairs, and that h!a duty a' such suicrmtendetit tvas and Is 'to have and exerclte supervision and control rr tie jHiblic buildings ofsaid runt and of its tiublic roads and bridges, and work done upon the sarnt; the Nipervlslon, care and maintenance of paupers and insane persons, and to generally exercise such active supervision over the affairs of the county as Is by law required of the county court aforesaid, outsldo the regularatten-dance regularatten-dance upon the sessions of said court; all or such acta anJ duties being and to be wlAect to the order and approval Vif said court." It IsfKrUicrailcged that the plain-tiirs plain-tiirs salary, as such suierintend ) eat. was fixed by said county court at 2."' per aunum, and that in consideration thereof he entered uion aud has performed his duties du-ties as such icpetiutendent from the date of Ills anpolntment, up to, and inclnding tile 31st dav of Dec., 1"SP. It Is alleged that, "the la- j bors cinneeted wltli such position I are, arduous aud are such as are by taw laid upon the county irourt," j and that in jierformlng them plalu- j tiff has acted 'merely as an cm- I ploye of said court except in the I matter of examination of cases of j innity. and Uf approval of the . bonds of county aud precinct olU- cer-, and that it Is impracticable ' owing to the nature of the duties to be ierforraed, to have mole than oue member of the county court designated to perform said labor." 1'lalntiff presented to the County court a bill itemired and verified. for his salary as superintendent for the month of December, lss9, for S20S.33, which was allowed and defendant de-fendant as clerk of Ihecouuty court, was ordered to draw a warrant in favor of plaiutitr for that amount upon the couuty trea-urer. which the defendant refused to do, and plaintiff pray that a writ of mandate man-date i-ue out of this court against the defendant, rtquiring him to issue said warrant. The defendant having bten served with iiolice of the application for the writ appeared and demurred to plaintiffs -ctition, on the ground that it did i.ot state facts sufliient to constitute a cause of action. Section ITS, vol. 1, Conip. Laws, l.SsS, provide- that: ,-Eah county "hall have a county ourt cunsi-tim; .f a probate judge of such county and three selectmen." Section 1S4 provides that "The county courts uiuvt tie held at their rt.-peetive couuty seats on Uie 1st Monday in March. June, September Septem-ber and December in each year, and oftener if they deem it necessary." Section 1ST provides that '-riie the county courts in their respective counties have jurisdiction and power under such limitations aud restriction-'- a are presciPied by law.'' Section 2H provitles that -Xo member of the'couit must lyj interested, inter-ested, directly or Indirectly ' " in any contract made by thu court or other person in behalf of the county, for tho erection of public buildings, the opening or imprive-meut imprive-meut of roads, or the building of bridges, or for other jmrjo--s." Section lilt provides that "all claims against the couuty .resented by members of the county court for per diem, or mileage or other service rendered by them, mutt be itemized as other claims, and must state that the service has tieen sctually rendered." ren-dered." Section 219 provides that "the prolate pro-late judge and selectmen shall each receive from their county 51.00 per day for each day actually employed in attending to business pertaining to the county court, together with mileage atj the rate of twenty cents per mile in going only from their residences to the county seat, at each l-ession of the court attended by them." Section fc9, Vol. I, Compiled I-aws, fixes the fees to which the probate judge is entitled for certain siiecified services, aud provides that he shall have "for any other service not herein provided for a reasonable comjieiisation." By the provision- of Section S9, of the statutes aluve quoted, it will be seen that for any service rendered by plaintiff as probate judge, where no fee for such service is fixed by law, he is entitled to a reasonable compensation. The claim for such comjielisHtiull is to bo allowed by the county court, upon a bill therefor, there-for, being presented, itemized and verified, showing the (articular service ser-vice rendered, etc. Sec 19J, Compiled Com-piled Laws. It will further be seen that as a member of the county court plaintiff plain-tiff is entitled to "it per day for each day actually employed In attending at-tending to business lertaluing to the county court together with mileage." Any and all claims of plaiiitif! "for iierdieni or mileage or other services rendered" by him must e .resented to the Couuty Court "itemized ana verified as other claims, and must statu that the service has leen actually rendered," and he is entitled to recover com-leusatiou com-leusatiou frum the Couuty for his services, in no other manner nor in any greater or different amount than that fixed by the statute, or allowed by the County Court for services actually rendered. The rule is veil settled that a tub-lie tub-lie officer Is bound to crform the duties of his ollicc for the compensation compensa-tion fixed by tue law. (Dillon's Municipal Corju, vol. 1, p. 315. Kvans vs. City of Trenton, "t X. J. Law T61. Territory vs. Carson, 10 I'a. Bep. .Vi9. Jones vs. Supervisors. Super-visors. 14 Wis. .",1S. Fjwe'.tvs. Woodbury County, 53 Iowa, 151.) In Kvaus vs. City of Trenton, supra, it is said "This ruin should be ery rigidly enforced. The statutes of our legislature, and the ordinances of our municipal corporations corpor-ations seldom descrilie with such detail and particularity the duties annexed to public cfliiTs; and it requires re-quires but little Ingenuity to raie nice distinctions between what duties may and what may not bo strictly official; aud If these distinctions distinc-tions are much favote I by courts ef justice, it may lead to greatabuse." The plainUffbascs, his claim in this case on the resolution of the county court appointing him superintendent super-intendent of county affairs and fix-iDg fix-iDg bis salary as 6uch superintendent superintend-ent at V-S03 jr year, and his acceptance of such apiioint-mentand apiioint-mentand performance of the duties It impo-ed. But section 201, heretofore hereto-fore quoted, prohibits any member ot such court frjra be Ing interested directly or IndfrectJir, In any contract con-tract made 6y Uib court or other person per-son In behalf of the county, forinv purpose. The resolution of tho court appointing plaintiff Euperln-etndentot Euperln-etndentot county affairs and his acceptance ac-ceptance of such pMltlott constituted " '?H nud wfts M because prohibited Ly Uie statute; , Its effect TlE ! OUft-ttwiHi be, or might be, to Increase his compeusa-lion compeusa-lion as an officer, and it was therefore there-fore vo.d as against public policy IndeiwudeuUy of the statute. Oilman Oil-man and Cowdrey vs. D. V. n. dted,,any M l0,ra 2"' a"d casra It Is prjbably tnie that the bul-nts bul-nts of the county is such as tore-quire tore-quire attention between the regular taslona orti,0 County CourCand weUUhkUn-Jef itcllon 191, VoI?I J-ocsp, 1.4 Ws, the court may appoint .?.or More of its members as a committee com-mittee to In ve sujiervision of stich business during the Interval between be-tween th regions or the Court and WltJlOrtatlUreKtlUrte&vTons. nn,l thatsnchccr'.mrttco would been-tllleU been-tllleU j comiwnsation for such services ser-vices at a rate not exceeding S4per day for tho time actually and necessarily ne-cessarily employed, together with mileage. Kut the county court, being a court of special aud limited jurisdiction auJ powers, canno: create an office audappolnt one of lis members to fill It at a fixed alarji ho'r can it bind the couuty by a resolution or con uact to pay one of Its members a fixed yearly sum for performing duties du-ties which, as Is alleged in this case are devolved by laar upon such court. If Uie labors of Uio court can l parcelled out in this manner, and fired and extra compensation allowed therefor, it can crcatu an pthce or appointment for each of Its members and wiUiout limit as to Uie salary allowed and thereby increase the compensation of Its members at their prcasure. Under Uie arraugemeut between plaintiff aud the county court he would be entitled to draw from the county treasury as superintendent, nearly $7 per day for every day in Uioyear, including Sundays and le- (tal holidays, when he could perform per-form none of the duties of his o siUon. During the sessions of the county court he would al-o be en-tiUed en-tiUed to 51 per day as a member of such court, andwhileengaged in his duties as prolate judge he would be entitled to the fees provided bv law for those duties, and yet, notwithstanding notwith-standing Uieierformauce of his duties du-ties as proliate judge and member ot the county court would, whllo soen pged prevent the performance of nis duties as superintendent, his salary as superintendent would continue Without interruption. The alleged fact that such has been the-former the-former practice of the couuty court does not add strength to the plaintiff plain-tiff claim. We. think the c-ourt has mi such power, and its exercise would lead to great abuses. The apioiutment in plalntill a a so-called superintendent of county affairs, at a fixed salary, was without authority au-thority and void, and created no liability lia-bility against the county for such salary. The application for writ of man-dateis man-dateis therefore denied. We con cur: C. S. Zaue, II. I. Henderson. Judge Blackluru filed an opinion concurring in the main drci'lou. but holding that the prolate judge-should judge-should have been paid r diem for bis services outside of his strict duties du-ties as prolnte judge. |
