Broaddus v. Board of County Com'rs of Pawnee County

• Decision Date: 14 February 1906
• Citation: 88 P. 250,16 Okla. 473,1906 OK 10
• Parties: BROADDUS v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF PAWNEE COUNTY.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

88 P. 250

16 Okla. 473, 1906 OK 10

BROADDUS v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF PAWNEE COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

February 14, 1906

Syllabus by the Court.

When a statute increases the duties of an officer by the addition of other duties germane to the office, he must perform them without extra compensation, unless such extra compensation is provided for in the statute. Hence, where a statute provides that the salary of the register of deeds shall be fixed by the board of county commissioners according to the population of the county, and the salary of such officer is so fixed then the fact that unorganized territory, not within the boundaries of the county, is added to the county for judicial purposes, and thereby the labor and services required of the said register of deeds is increased, will not authorize the commissioners in fixing his salary so as to take into consideration the population of such unorganized territory or add the same to the population of the county as shown by the official census, for the purpose of increasing such salary.

[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 37, Officers §§ 143 1/2, 144.]

Where the provisions of a statute for the purpose of fixing the amount to be paid to certain officers of the board of county commissioners adopts, as a basis for that purpose, the number of inhabitants of the respective counties, as shown by the returns of the assessors made in a certain year and each two years thereafter, and contains the further proviso that, when any unorganized territory is attached to any county for judicial purposes, the population of such unorganized territory shall be added to the population of said county in fixing the amount of the salary of certain county officers, especially naming such officers, this provision will not apply or be extended to any other county officer not especially enumerated therein. In such case, the doctrine of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" applies.

Error from District Court, Pawnee County; before Bayard T. Hainer, Judge.

From an action of the board of county commissioners of Pawnee county fixing the salary of T. M. Broaddus, register of deeds, he brings error. Affirmed.

This cause comes to this court on appeal from the district court of Pawnee county, where the case was tried before the court on the following stipulation of facts: "It is hereby stipulated and agreed that this appeal was regularly filed and certified to this court within the time prescribed by law, and that the proceedings from which this appeal is taken are in words and figures as follows, as appears by the journal of the proceedings of the county commissioners of Pawnee county, on page 9 of volume 2, as follows: 'October 8, 1902. The board met at 2 o'clock p. m., all members being present. As a basis for determining the amount of salary for the assessor, probate judge, register of deeds, county officers of Pawnee county for the fiscal year 1902 and 1903, the board took into consideration the population of Pawnee county proper, as shown by the returns of the assessor for the year 1902, to wit, 13,520, and fixed the amount of salary as follows: For assessor, $1,160 per year; for probate judge, $1,200 per year; register of deeds, $1,200 per year; county commissioners, $250 per year. As a basis for determining the amount of salary to be paid the county clerk, treasurer, sheriff, and county attorney, the board took into consideration the population of Pawnee county, to wit, 13,520, and also the population of the Osage reservation, 5,300, making a total of 18,320, not including the Osage Indians, numbering 2,045 as shown by the returns of the assessor for 1902. G. P. Moore, Clerk."' Upon this finding of facts, the district court found for the defendant, the board of county commissioners, affirming their action in excluding the population of the Osage Indian reservation from the population of Pawnee county, as shown by the census, in determining the salary of the register of deeds. From this decision, the plaintiff in error took an appeal to this court.

McGuire & Clark and Biddison & Eagleton, for plaintiff in error.

H. T. Conley, for defendant in error.

IRWIN J.

The only question involved in this case is as to the correctness of the action of the board of county commissioners in fixing the salary of the register of deeds according to the population of Pawnee county and excluding from the count of such population, the population of the Osage Indian reservation, which had been attached to Pawnee county for judicial purposes, and, by reason of such attaching, the labor performed, the services rendered, and the fees earned by the register of deeds were materially increased. Plaintiff in error contends that, by a reasonable interpretation of the statute, the fair intention of the Legislature was that this unorganized territory, known as the "Osage Indian Reservation," should be taken into account in determining the population of Pawnee county for the purpose of fixing the salary of the register of deeds. The provisions of the statute in regard to the subject are...