Bugg v. Sebastian County
| Decision Date | 24 December 1897 |
| Citation | 43 S.W. 506,64 Ark. 515 |
| Parties | BUGG v. SEBASTIAN COUNTY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District, EDGAR E BRYANT, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
Hill & Brizzolara and Rowe & Rowe, for appellants.
The office of collector being a constitutional one, the legislature has no power to pass a law which deprives its holder of all compensation, or so reduces it that it cannot be maintained properly. Art. 7, § 46, Const. of Ark.; 61 Ark. 26, and cases cited; 18 A. 445; 65 N.C. 603; 26 Wis 412; Cooley, Const. Lim. p. 79, note, and p. 332 note; 23 Ill. 547; 15 Lea, 679; Throop, Pub. Off. § 458; 64 Miss 312; S.C. 1 So. 353. The office of sheriff and collector, although consolidated by law so that one man holds both offices, are nevertheless distinct and separate, and the holder is entitled to compensation for each. 33 Ark. 396; 37 Ark. 386; Mechem, Pub. Off. 859; 31 Ark. 571; 9 Cal. 286; 25 Cal. 520; 30 Cal. 680; 38 Cal. 76; Sand. & H. Dig., § 6563, and cases cited; 120 U.S. 126. The court also erred in holding that the acceptance of the office of collector by appellant estopped him to complain of the inadequacy of the compensation.
The appellee pro se.
The offices of sheriff and collector are created by the constitution, but the legislature has full power to regulate the salaries of them. Art. 7, § 46, Const. Ark.; 40 Ark. 101; 61 Ark. 26; 40 Ark. 100; 95 Cal. 329; 65 Cal. 122. The act fixing the salaries of the sheriff and collector of Sebastian county is not in conflict with the constitution, and hence not void. Cooley, Const. Lim. (6 Ed.), p. 201, and cases cited; 21 O. 14. The law intended that the offices of sheriff and collector should be held by the same person, and that, to arrive at the amount of remuneration to be received by the incumbent the compensation of both offices should be considered. 65 T. C. 603, and cases cited.
This is an action by appellant, T. W. Bugg, sheriff and ex-officio collector of Sebastian county, to recover from said county $ 1,810,92, claimed to be due him for collecting the taxes of said county. The services were performed by him after the act of February 20, 1893, in reference to the salaries of certain officers of said county, went into effect. That act provides that "the fees and salary of the sheriff of Sebastian county shall be thirty-five hundred dollars per annum and the salary of the collector of said county shall be twelve hundred dollars per annum, out of which sums the said sheriff and collector shall pay such deputies and assistants as may be required to discharge the duties of said offices." Appellant contends that said act, so far as it attempted to regulate the compensation to be paid the collector of Sebastian county, was a nullity, and he bases his right to recover upon the law existing prior to the passage of said act.
The only question for us to consider is whether such provision of the act in question was a valid exercise of legislative power. The argument of appellant is that the office of collector is one established by the constitution, and that the legislature cannot abolish it, but that the salary provided by this act for such office is so small and inadequate that it will prevent the duties of such office from being performed, and will, in effect, abolish the office.
We may concede that the office of collector is, in law, a separate office from that of sheriff, and, it being an office established by the constitution, an act of the legislature requiring the incumbent of such office to perform its duties without compensation, or reducing the compensation therefor to such an extent as to make it impracticable to secure the performance of the duties of the office,--thereby in effect abolishing the office,-would be beyond the power of the legislature, and void. Powell v. Durden, 61 Ark. 21, 31 S.W. 740; Reid. v. Smoulter, 128 Pa. 324, 18 A. 445; 18 A. 445. But we do not have a case of that kind before us. The collector is allowed by the act a salary of $ 1,200. The evidence in this case shows that it costs the sheriff from about $ 950 to $ 1,200 to collect the taxes of said county each year. This cost, as shown by the evidence, is composed almost entirely of clerk hire and board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Washington County v. Davis
...whether the compensation is by fees or salary. Humphry v. Sadler, 40 Ark. 100; Powell v. Durden. 61 Ark. 21, 31 S.W. 740, and Bugg v. Sebastian County, 64 Ark. 515. It not appear from the record that the extra allowance to the circuit clerk, under the act in question, together with the sala......
-
State Use of Lonoke County v. Swaim
...1370, C. & M. Digest. So long as the fees fixed by the Legislature are reasonable the courts will uphold them. 66 Ark. 30; 61 Ark. 21; 64 Ark. 515; 73 Ark. 305; 88 386. SMITH, J. MCCULLOCH, C. J. and Mr. Justice HART, dissenting. OPINION SMITH, J. This suit was brought by appellant against ......
-
Gray v. Matheny
...one, the legislature has no power to pass a law which so far reduces the salary as to practically abolish the office. 61 Ark. 21; 64 Ark. 515. The act, so far relates to the treasurer, is conflict with section 10 of the constitution. F. D. Fulkerson, for appellants. In construing the act un......
-
House v. Brazil
...by the Constitution. In support of this contention, the cases of Powell v. Durden, 61 Ark. 21, 31 S.W. 740; and Bugg v. Sebastian County, 64 Ark 515, 43 S.W. 506, are The Court is of the opinion that no showing has been made that the salary fixed by the initiated act is so small as to cripp......