Combs, Judge, v. Knott County Fiscal Court

• Decision Date: 11 June 1940
• Citation: 283 Ky. 456
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
• Parties: Combs, Judge, v. Knott County Fiscal Court et al.

283 Ky. 456

Combs, Judge, v. Knott County Fiscal Court et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 11, 1940.

1. Officers. — The fixing of public officials' salaries is impressed with public interest, and officials authorized to fix such salaries should act justly and reasonably and not arbitrarily in so doing.

2. Judges. — Evidence held sufficient to support jury's verdict fixing county judge's annual salary at $1,200 on appeal from fiscal court's order fixing such salary at same amount (Ky. Stats., sec. 1072).

3. Appeal and Error. — A properly instructed jury's verdict, supported by substantial evidence, is conclusive and should not be set aside on appeal.

4. Judges. — A county fiscal court's order, fixing county judge's annual salary at $1,200, was properly confirmed by circuit court as against contention that it did not allow judge any compensation for trial of criminal misdemeanor cases, where he testified that fiscal court fixed his salary at $900, but later added $300 to cover his services in such cases (Ky. Stats., secs. 1072, 1732a-2).

5. Appeal and Error. — A question not raised or adjudicated in trial court cannot be considered when first raised in Court of Appeals.

6. Appeal and Error. — On appeal from judgment confirming county fiscal court's order, fixing county judge's annual salary at $1,200, certified copy of such court's order, showing that judge's annual salary was fixed at $900 and that he was allowed $300 additional compensation for services in misdemeanor cases by separate paragraph, will not be considered, where such order is not in record, though copy was attached to appellees' brief (Ky. Stats., secs. 1072, 1732a-2).

Appeal from Knott Circuit Court.

Combs & Combs, Carl Perkins and J.C. Burnett for appellant.

Dan Martin for appellees.

Before John W. Caudill, Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE CAMMACK.

Affirming.

By order of the fiscal court of Knott county the annual salary of Robert Combs, the county judge, has been fixed at $1,200. He prosecuted an appeal to the circuit court by filing therein a certified copy of the order and a statement of appeal wherein he set forth reasons why the salary was not sufficient to fairly and reasonably compensate him for his official services. By consent of the parties, or at least without objection, the case was submitted to a jury and trial on appeal resulted in a verdict and judgment confirming the action of the fiscal court and fixing the salary and compensation of the county judge at the same amount, and this appeal followed.

It is argued by appellant that the salary fixed by the fiscal court, and affirmed by judgment of the circuit court, is unreasonable and wholly inadequate to compensate him fairly and reasonably for his services as county judge. Text authorities and cases from foreign jurisdictions are cited which set forth as a general principle, the soundness of which cannot be questioned, that the matter of fixing the salaries of public officials is impressed with public interest and that officials invested with authority to fix such salaries should act justly and reasonably and not arbitrarily in so doing, because inadequacy of salary tends toward lessening the vigor and efficiency of public service and discourages competent persons to seek or accept public positions. On the other hand it is axiomatic that officials are not entitled to public largess or bounty but only to compensation commensurate with the duties of their office.

Appellant and a number of witnesses introduced by him testified in effect that the salary fixed by the fiscal court was unreasonably low and the amount specified as a reasonable salary ranged from $1,800 to $2,400 per annum. However, in enumerating his duties he and others included some for which he was entitled to statutory fees in addition to the compensation fixed for him by the court. He also testified that he had and would incur expenses in making trips in and out of the county in connection with official duties. He also included office supplies in the items of expense. The evidence shows that the necessary supplies for county officials are provided for in the county budget and if it is actually necessary for the county judge to make some of the trips referred to in the discharge of official duties he should be reimbursed by the fiscal court for expenses thereby incurred. The evidence shows that the compensation fixed for appellant compares...