Weeks v. Texarkana

Citation6 S.W. 504,50 Ark. 81
PartiesWEEKS v. TEXARKANA
Decision Date17 December 1887
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

APPEAL from Miller Circuit Court, L. A. BYRNE, Judge.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Scott & Jones, for appellant.

Municipal corporations have no powers except those expressly granted them by statute, or such as arise by necessary implication. There is no authority for the council to pass an ordinance making the recorder a salaried officer. Mansf. Dig. Secs. 792 to 797, &c. He is a member of the council. Ib. Officers are deemed to have accepted the office with reference to the provisions of the charter and statutes relating to the services and compensation prescribed. 1 Dillon Mun. Corp. 2d Ed. Sec. 169; 19 N.Y. 326.

Appellee was a member of the council, and any ordinance or contract made by it with him was contrary to public policy and void. 25 Wis. 551; 3 Am. Rep. 105; 19 N.Y. 326.

The ordinance was void because it increased the recorder's salary during his term of office. When a corporation pays money to an officer for services to which he is not entitled under the law, and such officer is a member of the council ordering the same paid, the corporation can recover it back. See 89 Pa.St. 186; 33 Am. Rep. 748.

See also 34 Ark. 303.

J. E Cook, for appellee.

Councils have the inherent and implied power to pay their officers reasonable compensation for their services by salary or otherwise. 1 Dillon Mun. Corp. 2d Ed. Sec. 55.

When the appellee was elected both the salary and fee ordinances were in force, and during his term of office the council could pass no ordinance diminishing his salary or fees, to which he did not assent. He never did assent as in case of 34 Ark. 303.

OPINION

SMITH, J.

Weeks sued the town for his salary as recorder from June 1, 1884 to April 28, 1885, at the rate of fifty dollars a month. The answer was in two paragraphs. The first denied the defendant's indebtedness because the council had on the 27th of May, 1884, abolished the recorder's salary and the plaintiff had acquiesced and had continued to act as recorder, and had from time to time presented to the council his accounts for services, which were duly allowed and paid to him.

In the second paragraph, the defendant pleaded a set-off of six hundred dollars being one year's salary which the plaintiff had received under an ordinance passed April 6th 1883, after his election on April 3 1883; which ordinance increased his compensation during his term of office. Upon demurrer the first plea was adjudged to be good and the second bad. The defendant saved an exception to the action of the court upon the plea of set-off, and the parties went to trial upon the issue formed by the first plea. The plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for the amount sued for.

The statute has not in express terms authorized the council of an incorporated town to remunerate the services of its recorder. Nevertheless, as onerous duties are devolved upon him, requiring time and labor for their performance, such power may be fairly inferred as essential to the purposes of the incorporation. Otherwise the efficiency of the municipal government might be crippled and the best interests of the town suffer, from the impossibility of procuring a competent man, who would give his services gratuitously. Municipal corporations have power to make by-laws or ordinances, not inconsistent with the laws of the state, for carrying into effect the powers conferred and discharging the duties imposed upon them. Mansf. Dig., sec. 764; Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 3 d Ed. sec. 89.

An important limitation upon this implied power is contained in Section ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Frederick v. Douglas Cnty.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 11 Junio 1897
    ...by municipal officials have been recovered back may be cited, as follows: Demarest v. Inhab itants, 40 N. J. Law, 604; Weeks v. Texarkana, 50 Ark. 81, 6 S. W. 504;Tacoma v. Lillis, 4 Wash. 797, 31 Pac. 321. The principle is also recognized in Willard v. Comstock, 58 Wis. 565, 17 N. W. 401. ......
  • State v. Perkins
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 1 Enero 1912
    ...or compensation paid illegally or by mistake out of public funds, by ministerial officers or boards to public officers, may be recovered. 50 Ark. 81, 84; 84 Ark. 516, 520; 13 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cases, 351, footnote following 3. The facts presented by the record constitute such a fraud, acciden......
  • Harrison v. Campbell
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 2 Julio 1923
    ...authorities cited for appellants do not show any right to injunctive relief. Council had right to provide salary for recorder. Meeks v. Texarkana, 50 Ark. 81. No allegation or proof that said salary is larger or than comes within provisions of § 7521, C. & M. Digest. OPINION HART, J. Appell......
  • Barnes v. Williams
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 3 Mayo 1890
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT