Bass v. Saline County
| Decision Date | 23 December 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 34854,34854 |
| Citation | 106 N.W.2d 860,171 Neb. 538 |
| Parties | Margaret L. BASS, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SALINE, State of Nebraska, Appellee. In the Matter of the Appeal of Margaret L. Bass from disallowance of claim against Saline County, Nebraska. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A provision in a statute that a county officer shall have necessary clerks and assistants at such salaries as he may determine, with the approval of the county board, invests the county officer with the duty of fixing the salaries of clerks and employees in his office.
2. In discharging the duty of fixing salaries of clerks and employees in his office the county officer must not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably.
3. The expression, 'with the approval of the county board,' authorizes the county board to approve or disapprove the salary fixed by the officer, but such county board must not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably in so doing.
4. Where a county officer has fixed the salary of a clerk or employee, and the evidence is undisputed that the salary so fixed is fair and reasonable for the service rendered, a disallowance or reduction of the salary claim by the county board is arbitrary and unreasonable.
Steinacher & Vosoba, Wilber, for appellant.
Ach & Ach, Friend, for appellee.
Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., and CARTER, MESSMORE, YEAGER, CHAPPELL, WENKE and BOSLAUGH, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court for Saline County dismissing plaintiff's petition on appeal from the partial disallowance of her salary claim by the board of county commissioners of Saline County.
There is no dispute in the evidence. Plaintiff is the clerk of the county court of Saline County. The evidence shows that on September 15, 1959, the county judge of Saline County informed the county board that he had fixed the salary of plaintiff beginning in October 1959, at $225 per month. In October 1959, plaintiff filed her claim for salary in the amount of $225. The county board allowed the claim in the amount of $190 in accordance with a salary schedule established by it on July 1, 1959. The evidence is not disputed that plaintiff was competent and efficient, and that her services as clerk of the county court were reasonably of the value of $225 per month. The sole question is whether or not the county board, under such circumstances, is required to pay the salary of $225 per month as fixed by the county judge.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that the effect of section 23-111, R.R.S.1943, authorizes the county judge to fix the salary of the clerk of the county court, provided that such salary is reasonable and not the arbitrary act of the county judge. It is the contention of the county that the county board is authorized to disapprove the action of the county judge in fixing the salary, even though it is reasonable and fair.
Since 1943 section 23-1111, R.R.S.1943, has provided: 'The county officers in all counties shall have the necessary clerks and assistants for such periods and at such salaries as they may determine with the approval of the county board, whose salaries shall be paid out of the general fund of the county.' In 1953 section 23-1114, R.R.S.1943, was enacted, reading as follows so far as here applicable: 'The salaries of all officers, deputies, and employees of the county, excepting the members of the county board and the county judge, shall be fixed by the county board at least sixty days prior to the closing of filings of certificates of nomination to place names on primary ballot for the respective offices; * * *.' It is clear from the reading of these who sections of the statutes that they were in conflict in regard to the fixing of salaries of employees in county offices.
In 1955 the Legislature resolved that conflict by amending section 23-1114, R.R.S.1943, to read as follows: 'The salaries of all elected officers of the county, excepting the members of the county board and the county judge, shall be fixed by the county board at least sixty days prior to the closing of filings of certificates of nomination to place names on the primary ballot for the respective officers; * * *.' It will be observed that the word 'employees' was omitted from section 23-1114, R.R.S.1943, as it was amended in 1955. A subsequent amendment of this section in 1959 did not change the act so far as pertinent here. It is fundamental that there can be no such office as a deputy county judge, such an office being unknown to the law, and consequently the provisions of statute relating to deputies have no application to the case at bar. 30A Am.Jur., Judges, § 29, p. 18. For the purposes of section 23-1111, R.R.S.1943, a county judge is a county officer.
The following rules of statutory construction are applicable here. Statutes pertaining to the same subject matter should be construed together. Such statutes, being pari materia, must be construed as if they were one law and effect given to every provision. Mueller v. Keeley, 163 Neb. 613, 80 N.W.2d 707; Sun Ins. Co. of New York v. Aetna Ins. Co., 169 Neb. 94, 98 N.W.2d 692. In enacting a statute the Legislature must be presumed to have knowledge of all previous legislation upon the subject. Sun Ins. Co. of New York v. Aetna Ins. Co., supra. The intent of the Legislature is expressed by omission as well as by inclusion. Ledwith v. Bankers Life Ins. Co., 156 Neb. 107, 54 N.W.2d 409; Johnson Fruit Co. v. Story, Neb., 106 N.W.2d 182. Where general and special provisions of statutes are in conflict, the general law yields to the special, without regard to priority of dates in enacting the same, and a special law will not be repealed by general provisions unless by express words or necessary implication. State ex rel. Strom v. Marsh, 162 Neb. 593, 77 N.W.2d 163. County commissioners possess no powers except such as are expressly granted or are incidentally necessary to carry such powers into effect. Ahern v. Richardson County, 127 Neb. 659, 256 N.W. 515.
Applying the foregoing rules of statutory construction, it is clear that the fixing of salaries of employees in county offices is the duty of the various county officers. It was therefore the duty of the county judge of Saline County, under section 23-1111, R.R.S.1943, to fix the salary of the clerk of the county court.
The Legislature...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan County Commission v. Powell
...497 P.2d 204; Powers v. Isley, 66 Ariz. 94, 183 P.2d 880; Mann v. County of Maricopa, 104 Ariz. 561, 456 P.2d 931; Bass v. County of Saline, 171 Neb. 538, 106 N.W.2d 860; Board of Commissioners of Vigo County v. Stout, 136 Ind. 53, 35 N.E. 683; In re Salaries for Probation Officers of Berge......
-
O'Coin's, Inc. v. Treasurer of Worcester County
...status of the judiciary as an independent department of government. Cf. Powers v. Isley, 66 Ariz. 94, 183 P.2d 880; Bass v. County of Saline, 171 Neb. 538, 106 N.W.2d 860. 6. The petition is to be dismissed in so far as it relates to the county commissioners. A writ of mandamus is to be iss......
-
Salary of Juvenile Director, Matter of
...(1969); Powers v. Isley, 66 Ariz. 94, 183 P.2d 880 (1947); Smith v. Miller, 153 Colo. 35, 384 P.2d 738 (1963); Bass v. County of Saline, 171 Neb. 538, 106 N.W.2d 860 (1960); Commissioners Court v. Martin, 471 S.W.2d 100 (Tex.Civ.App.1971); But see Morgan County Comm'n v. Powell, 292 Ala. 30......
-
Wetovick v. The County Of Nance
...“has any evidence” 17 that the terms and conditions are unreasonable. For its “any evidence” standard, it relies on our decision in Bass v. County of Saline, 18 in which we interpreted and applied § 23-1111. Section 23-1111 provides, “The county officers in all counties shall have the neces......