Brome v. Cuming Cnty.
Decision Date | 10 February 1891 |
Citation | 31 Neb. 362,47 N.W. 1050 |
Parties | BROME v. CUMING COUNTY ET AL. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Section 47, c. 18, Comp. St., which provides for the appointment of a county attorney by the county board, was repealed by implication by the etc., approved March 10, 1885.
2. When the legislature has passed two statutes upon the same subject, the last one covering the entire subject-matter embraced in the first, and also contains additional provisions, the last act supersedes the former, and repeals it by implication.
3. The county attorney is the law officer of the county. The county board cannot lawfully employ an attorney to perform the duties required by law to be discharged by the county attorney, and pay for such services out of the treasury of the county.
Error to district court, Cuming county; POWERS, Judge.Brome, Andrews & Sheean, for plaintiff in error.
E. K. Valentine, M. McLaughlin, T. M. Franse, and P. M. Moodie, for defendants in error.
The board of supervisors of Cuming county retained the plaintiff in error, an attorney at law, to assist the county attorney in the prosecution of suits brought against several ex county clerks and their bondsmen to recover moneys alleged to have been received by said county clerks, during their respective terms of office, in excess of the compensation allowed by law, and not reported to the county board, nor paid into the county treasury. The county board allowed the plaintiff in error the sum of $150 as a retainer fee in said actions, whereupon Emiel Heller, a tax-payer, took an appeal to the district court. The cause was submitted to the court upon the following stipulation of facts: The finding and judgment of the district court were against the plaintiff in error.
It is claimed by the plaintiff in error that section 47 of an act entitled “An act concerning counties and county officers,” passed by the legislature in 1879, conferred authority upon the board of supervisors to make the employment, and to pay him for the services rendered. Said section provides that Unless this section has been repealed by the legislature, the point made by the plaintiff in error is well taken. It must be conceded that it has never been repealed by any express enactment. It is urged by the defendant in error that it was repealed, by implication, by the passage by the legislature in 1885 of an act entitled “An act to provide for the election of county attorneys, to define their duties, and fix their salaries,” etc. Section 1 provides that a county attorney shall be elected in each organized county at the general election in 1886, and every two years thereafter. The second and fourth sections are as follows: By the third section it is made the duty of the county attorney to prosecute criminal complaints before magistrates, as well as all civil suits before such officer in which the state or county is a party or interested. Section 5 fixes the amount of salary according to the population of the county. Section 6 provides that “the county attorney may appoint one or more deputies, who shall act without any compensation from the county, to assist him in the discharge of his duties: provided, that the county attorney of any county may, under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gunn v. Mahaska Cnty.
...98 N. W. 619;Platte v. Gerrard, 12 Neb. 244, 11 N. W. 298;Stringer v. Franklin County (Tex.) 123 S. W. 1168. See, also, Brome v. Cuming County, 31 Neb. 362, 47 N. W. 1050, and Frederick v. Douglas County, 96 Wis. 411, 71 N. W. 798. Most of the decisions relied upon by appellant are disposed......
-
Gunn v. Mahaska County
... ... 244 (11 N.W ... 298); Stringer v. Franklin County (Tex.) 123 S.W ... 1168. See, also, Brome v. Cuming County, 31 Neb. 362 ... (47 N.W. 1050), and Frederick v. Douglas County, 96 ... Wis ... ...
- Brome v. Cuming County
-
State ex rel. Frohmiller v. Hendrix
... ... Statutes ... similar to section 4-503, supra, were involved in ... the cases of Brome v. Cuming County, 31 ... Neb. 362, 47 N.W. 1050; Clough v. Hart, 8 ... Kan. 487; Board of County ... ...