Culberson v. Watkins

• Decision Date: 05 September 1923
• Docket Number: 3506.
• Citation: 119 S.E. 319,156 Ga. 185
• Parties: CULBERSON, COUNTY TREASURER, v. WATKINS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

119 S.E. 319

156 Ga. 185

CULBERSON, COUNTY TREASURER, v. WATKINS.

No. 3506.

Supreme Court of Georgia

September 5, 1923

Syllabus by the Court.

It is unnecessary for a judge of the juvenile court of Fulton county to have his claim for salary audited or approved by the board of county commissioners. This court having been created by law, and the method of compensation having been provided by law, and the amount of his salary having been fixed for a designated term, and it being further provided by law that all of the expenses of the court should be paid out of county funds, it is the duty of the county treasurer to pay the salary fixed in accordance with law when earned as demanded. Rogers v. Citizens' Bank of Douglas, 149 Ga. 568, 101 S.E. 674. Upon the refusal to pay, mandamus will lie against the treasurer of the county to compel payment of any part of the salary when by law it is payable and after it has been demanded, although at the time of making demand no formal warrant had issued therefor. Clark v. Eve, 134 Ga. 788 (6a), 68 S.E. 598.

The word "fix," as ordinarily used, means to place securely, settle, determine, immovable, unalterable. The term imports finality and stability.

The judges of the superior court of Fulton county, who are authorized by the act of 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 35) to appoint for a term of six years and fix the salary of a judge of the juvenile court, have no power during the term to alter the salary of such judge. "It is a well-settled rule that a person accepting a public office, with a fixed salary, is bound to perform the duties of the office for the salary. He cannot legally claim additional compensation for the discharge of these duties, even though the salary may be a very inadequate remuneration for the services." 1 Dill Mun. Cor. (5th Ed.) § 426. Consequently the reason stated in the order of the judges, "that the present salary received by the judge of said court is not commensurate with the amount of work he is required to perform," affords no legal ground for an increase of the salary of the judge of the juvenile court; and it was error to require the county treasurer of Fulton county, by mandamus absolute, to pay the judge of the juvenile court a salary of $450 per month instead of $350, which was the compensation fixed by the original order of his appointment.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; John D. Humphries, Judge.

Petition for mandamus by G. M. Watkins against H. L. Culberson, County Treasurer. A mandamus absolute was granted, and respondent brings error. Reversed.

E. E Pomeroy, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Garland Watkins, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

RUSSELL C.J. (after stating the facts as above).

There are two questions presented by the record. The first is whether the judges of the superior court of Fulton county have the power to change the amount of the salary of the judge of the juvenile court of Fulton county during the term of his appointment and after it has been once fixed; and the second is whether it is necessary that the salary of the judge of the juvenile court of Fulton county be audited and approved by the county commissioners of Fulton county. We shall consider these questions in reverse order.

1. Under the previous decisions of this court it seems plain that the approval of the county commissioners is not necessary to enable the judge of the juvenile court of Fulton county to collect any compensation that may be provided for him by law. Under the provisions of section 39 of the act of 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 49) the salary of the defendant in error as judge of the juvenile court of Fulton county is payable out of county funds in the hands of the treasurer of that county. There is no other way in which the salary or compensation can be paid. The court having been created by law, the judge being appointed by law, and the method of paying the salary of the judge being provided by law, there is no necessity for an audit of the claim nor that a formal warrant therefor be issued. The case as to this stands upon the same basis as the extra compensation which, by an amendment to the Constitution, certain counties are permitted to pay to the judge of the superior court in addition to the compensation derived from state funds as provided by the Constitution. In Clark v. Eve, 134 Ga. 788 (6a), 68 S.E. 598, this court laid down the rule as follows:

"Under the provisions of the act approved August 15 1905 * * * as applicable to the county of Richmond, the salary of the judge of the city court of Richmond county became fixed by law, payable out of the county treasury in monthly installments; and it was unnecessary for the judge of the city court to have his claim for salary audited and a warrant on the county treasurer issued therefor. See Gamble v. Clark, 92 Ga. 696, 19 S.E. 54; Lamb v. Toomer, 91 Ga. 621, 17 S.E. 966; Chatham County v. Gaudry, 120 Ga. 121, 47 S.E. 634, and cit. Rogers v. Citizens' Bank, 149 Ga. 568 (5). Upon the refusal to pay, mandamus will lie against the treasurer of the county to compel payment of any part of the salary when by law it is payable and after it has been demanded, although at the time of making demand no formal warrant had issued therefor."

Section 39 of the act of 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 49) provides that:

"All expenses incurred by the court in complying with the provisions of this act shall be paid out of county funds."

The salary of the judge is necessarily one of the items of expense in operating the court. There is only one way in which the salary of the judge can be paid, and this is from the funds of the county. To hold that the county commissioners, by withholding their approval of the payment of such sums that might be fixed by the judges of the superior court, could defeat the provision for the payment of the judge of the juvenile court, would be to leave to the discretion of the county commissioners the question whether a juvenile court could exist; and evidently this view of the case was not in the minds of the General Assembly at the time of the passage of the act. From a reading of the act of 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 35) it seems clear that the juvenile court was created by law, and the judge appointed by law, and his compensation was fixed by law, and the method of payment was provided by law, to wit, from the "county funds" of Fulton county.

For the reasons above stated, we hold that there is no necessity for any audit or approval of the salary by the county commissioners nor any requirement that a formal warrant be issued. Clark v. Eve, supra. The salary of the judge of the juvenile court of Fulton county is a fixed charge to which the funds of the county are subject, and proof of payment suffices to enable the county commissioners to legally account for such portion of the public funds as is disbursed in extinguishment of this charge.

2. However we do not think that it is in the power of the judges of the superior court to increase or diminish, during the term for which he is appointed, the salary once "fixed" as compensation of the judge of the juvenile court of Fulton county; and for that reason the order requiring the payment to the judge of that court of the sum of $450 per month is erroneous. It is plain that the order of the judge requiring the payment of $450 in payment of the salary for the month of September, 1922, is erroneous for that order concerned payment for past services already fixed at $350 per month; and nothing is better settled than that compensation for services in the past cannot be altered, either increased or diminished, whatever may be the rule as to the power to increase or diminish...