Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Greer Co. v. Henry

• Decision Date: 14 May 1912
• Docket Number: Case Number: 3332
• Citation: 1912 OK 328,33 Okla. 210,126 P. 761
• Parties: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GREER CO. v. HENRY et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1912 OK 328

126 P. 761

33 Okla. 210

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GREER CO. v. HENRY et al.

Case Number: 3332

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: May 14, 1912

Syllabus

¶0COUNTIES--Officers--County Attorney--County Clerk-- Salaries.At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the salary of the county attorney elected at that time, being fixed at $ 2,000 per annum by section 18 of the Schedule, because of article 23, section 10, of the Constitution, cannot be changed during his term of office, and was not reduced by a decrease in the population of the county, ascertained according to a census taken pursuant to the act of April 8, 1908(Laws 1907-08, c. 9, art. 1).Nor was the salary of the county clerk, elected at the same time, nor the $ 600 allowed him for clerk hire thereby reduced, being fixed by act of March 10, 1905(Laws 1905, c. 19, art. 1), extended to and put in force throughout the state.But the latter, being no part of his salary, could be and was raised by the act of May 29, 1908(Laws 1907-08, c. 25, art. 1), allowing the clerk for clerk hire $ 800.

Error from Greet County Court; Charles H. Eagin, Judge.

Action by H. D. Henry and others against the Board of County Commissioners of Greer County.Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.Affirmed on conditions.

J. L. Carpenter, for plaintiff in error.

H. D. Henry and Tisinger, Clay & Robinson, for defendants in error.

TURNER, C. J.

¶1 On March 7, 1911, H. D. Henry, defendant in error, sued the board of county commissioners of Greer county, plaintiff in error, in the county court of Greer county, for $ 722.91.His petition substantially states that on September 17, 1907, he was duly elected, and on November 18, 1907, duly qualified, as county attorney of said county; that at said time the population of said county was in excess of 22,000 and that his salary, being fixed on a basis of population, was $ 2,000 per annum; that said salary was paid him from that time up to and including June 30th, 1909; that from July 1st, 1909, up to and including June 17, 1910, he was paid a salary at the rate of $ 1,250 per annum; that he should have been paid a salary of $ 2,000 per annum, and prayed judgment for $ 722.91, the difference between the two amounts, a claim which he says has been rejected by the county commissioners.For answer defendant, after pleading a general denial, specifically admitted the facts set forth in the petition, and that plaintiff's term of office expired January 11, 1907, and further alleged that on May 22, 1909, an election was held pursuant to law, the result of which was that Harmon county was carved out of Greer county, and created on June 2, 1909, pursuant to the proclamation of the Governor; that on May 5, 1909, said board, pursuant to law, caused to be taken a census of the remaining portion of Greer county as it would be when Harmon county was organized, and, after ascertaining the population thereof to be 15,666, filed a correct certificate of said census with the Secretary of State; that the object of said census was that said board might know what compensation the county officers of Greer county, including plaintiff, would be entitled thereafter to receive; that the population of Greer county on June 1, 1909, being as stated and less than 20,000, the compensation of the county attorney was $ 1,250 per annum, which had been paid up to and including June 17, 1910, and that, there being no salary due him under the Constitution and laws of the state, asked to be discharged.

¶2 On May 22, 1911, Floyd McNeill, defendant in error, by leave intervened, setting up a similar state of facts, except that he was elected at the same time county clerk of Greer county, with compensation fixed by law at $ 1,600 per annum salary and $ 800 per annum for clerk hire, making $ 2,400 per annum which he received up to June 30, 1909; that at that time the county commissioners, by reason of the reduction in population to 15,666, wrongfully reduced his salary to $ 1,300 per annum, and to $ 500 per annum for clerk hire, making $ 1,800 per annum which was paid him up to and including June 17, 1910, and sues for $ 634, $ 300 of which being the difference between $ 800 allowed and what he received.The issues joined with him by answer were substantially the same as the issues joined with the county attorney.On this state of the pleadings there was judgment for the plaintiff and intervener for the respective amounts claimed, and the board of county commissioners brings the case here.

¶3 It is assigned that the court erred in rendering judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants in error.Whether such was error depends upon a proper construction of article 23, section 10, of the Constitutionandsection 18 of the Schedule.

¶4 In Guldin v. Schuylkill County, 149 Pa. 210, 24 A. 171, the court said:

"It is a familiar canon of construction that one part of a statute must be so construed that the whole may, if possible, stand; and this is equally applicable to the construction of the organic law of the commonwealth.A single provision may not be selected out of several relating to the same subject, and full, literal meaning given to its words without reference to the qualifying effect of other provisions, and thus produce an apparent repugnance of one provision to another.On the contrary, all the provisions relating to a particular subject, and all others qualifying such provisions, no matter where they may stand in the Constitution, are to be grouped together, when considering such subjects, and so read that they may blend or stand in harmony, if that can be done without violence to the language."

¶5 That the salaries of defendants in error could not be lowered after their election and during their term of office is made apparent by coupling those sections together in their inverse order with the word but.Stripped to the point and so considered they read:

"Until otherwise provided by law, the * * * salary * * * of all county * * * officers, * * * shall be as now provided by the laws of the territory of Oklahoma, for like named officers.* * * Provided, further, that county attorneys * * * of the several counties of the state having a population of more than twenty thousand shall be paid a salary of two thousand dollars per annum,"(but)"except wherein otherwise provided in this Constitution, in no case shall the salary or emolument of any public official be changed after his election or appointment, or during his term of office. * * *"

¶6 The latter section, operating, as it does, as a...