Sandager v. Walsh Cnty.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1888
• Parties: Sandager v. Walsh County.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

50 N.W. 196

6 Dak. 31

Sandager

v.Walsh County.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Dakota.

Feb. Term, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Walsh county; W. B. McConnell, Judge.

Action by P. E. Sandager against Walsh county for commissions alleged to be due plaintiff as treasurer of defendant county. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The facts on which plaintiff's action was based were substantially set forth in the complaint, as follows: The people of Walsh county voted to bond the county for $25,000 for the purpose of erecting a court-house and jail. The bonds were negotiatedand sold by the county commissioners of said county, and the proceeds thereof, $25,051, turned over by said commissioners to the county treasurer, appellant herein, as by law provided. Upon said $25,051 the appellant claims a commission of 4 per cent., amounting to $1,002.04. Defendant demurred to the complaint, and the court sustained the demurrer. The statute on which plaintiff relied as establishing his right to commissions is Pol. Code Dak. c. 39, § 15, which provides: “Each county treasurer shall receive for his services the following fees: On all money collected by him for each fiscal year, four per cent. On all sums collected, percentage shall be allowed but once, and, in computing the amount collected for the purpose of charging percentage, all sums, from whatever source derived, shall be included together. For advertising and selling lands for delinquent tax, an additional fee of five per cent., to be paid only so far as the lands are actually sold, and out of the fund received therefor, and to be collected in each case where the lands are sold, and from the purchaser; but for all other cases and services the treasurer shall be paid the same pro rata from the respective funds collected by him, whether the same be in money, territorial or county warrants.”

Noyes & McLaughlin, for appellant. C. A. M. Spencer, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This case is affirmed under the authority of Territory v Cavanaugh, 3 Dak. 325, 19 N. W. Rep. 413. While in that case the proposition was not necessarily before the court for determination, yet, in the view finally taken of the case, the question must have been fully considered by the court, and, in consideration of the reliance placed on the decision by the legislature, courts, and individuals since its rendition, it is not deemed advisable to again examine the question involved. All the justices...