City of Council Bluffs v. Waterman

• Decision Date: 25 October 1892
• Citation: City of Council Bluffs v. Waterman, 86 Iowa 688, 53 N.W. 289 (Iowa 1892)
• Parties: CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS v. WATERMAN.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

86 Iowa 688

53 N.W. 289

CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS

v.WATERMAN.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 25, 1892.

Appeal from superior court of Council Bluffs; J. E. F. MCGEE, Judge.

Action by plaintiff to recover of defendant $298 claimed to have been illegally paid him for services as alderman of said city, and for services as a member of the board of equalization.Jury waived.Trial to the court, and judgment for plaintiff.Defendant appeals.G. A. Holmes, for appellant.

J. J. Stewart,City Sol., for appellee.

KINNE, J.

1.The facts disclosed by this record are that defendant was duly elected as alderman of plaintiff city for the term of two years from and after March 17, 1888, at which time he qualified and entered upon the discharge of his duties; that he continued to hold said office and perform said duties during the entire term for which he had been elected; that at the time he was elected, qualified, and entered upon the discharge of his duties as alderman, his compensation, fixed by statute, as well as by an ordinance of said city, was $1 for every regular meeting of the board, but not to exceed $50 per year; that during the last year of his term of office he accepted and received from plaintiff city, as a salary for the performance of his duties as alderman, $250, paid to him in equal quantity installments, and the further sum of $98, paid to him March 8, 1890.The defendant admits the receipt of this money, and claims it was lawfully and voluntarily paid to him.He also claims that the $98 was properly paid to him for services as a member of the board of equalization of said city.

2.It will be seen that no question is made as to the legal right of the plaintiff to recover back money paid defendant under a mistake of law.The only questions we are called upon to determine are: First, whether defendant as an alderman of plaintiff city was entitled to the amount paid him; and, second, whether, as a member of the board of equalization, he was entitled to the $98 which he received for such services.When defendant was elected, qualified, and entered upon the discharge of his duties as alderman, he did so under a statute which provided: “The compensation of the council or trustees shall not exceed one dollar to each member for every regular or special meeting of the board, and shall not exceed fifty dollars to each in any one year.”Code, § 505.At the same time there was in force in said city of Council Bluffs an ordinance of the city, which provided: “The members of the city council shall receive one dollar for each meeting of the city council, provided such compensation shall not exceed fifty dollars in any one year, to any one member of the city council.”The following statute, applicable to the city officers, including alderman, was also in force when defendant was elected, qualified, and entered upon the discharge of his duties, viz.: “The emoluments of no officer whose election or appointment is required by this chapter shall be increased or diminished during the term for which he shall have been elected or appointed; nor shall any change of compensation affect any officer whose office shall be created under the authority of this chapter during his existing term, unless the office be abolished.”Code, § 491.By chapter 24, Acts22d Gen. Assem., which went into effect July 4, 1888, it was provided “that there shall be paid to members of the city council of cities of the first class an amount prescribed by ordinance, not in excess of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250) per annum, and this amount shall be in full compensation of all services of such councilmen, of every kind and character whatsoever, connected with their official duties.”Said act also expressly repealed all acts and parts of acts in conflict with the above.In pursuance of the statute, the city council of Council Bluffs passed an ordinance to take effect March 15, 1889, which provided “that each alderman of the city of Council Bluffs shall receive as his only compensation during his term of office the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars per year, payable quarterly.”This ordinance provided for the repeal of all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with it.This court has often construed section 491 of the Code as prohibiting any change in the salary of officers affected by it during the term for which they were elected.Cox v. City of Burlington, 43 Iowa, 612;Bryan v. City of Des Moines, 51 Iowa, 590, 2 N. W. Rep. 414;City of Des Moines v. McHenry, 51 Iowa, 710, 2 N. W. Rep. 264.But it is contended by appellant that the act of the 22d general assembly above quoted expressly provides that the city council may by ordinance fix the compensation of an alderman at any sum not exceeding $250 per annum, and that, as said act took effect in July, 1888, and the ordinance of the council on March 15, 1889, sections 491and505 of the Code were repealed.We cannot accede to the correctness of this claim.The act of the 22d general assembly did not in any event take...