Etter v. Board of County Commissioners of Twin Falls County

• Decision Date: 22 April 1927
• Docket Number: 4612
• Citation: 255 P. 1095,44 Idaho 192
• Parties: O. M. ETTER et al., Respondents and Cross-appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, Appellant and Cross-respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

255 P. 1095

44 Idaho 192

O. M. ETTER et al., Respondents and Cross-appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, Appellant and Cross-respondent

No. 4612

Supreme Court of Idaho

April 22, 1927

EVIDENCE - APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT FROM ORDER OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS-MINUTES OF CLERK OF BOARD - COUNTIES - MEETING OF COMMISSIONERS - REDUCING SALARIES OF COUNTY OFFICIALS - DUTY OF DISTRICT COURT-POWER OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS-DISCRETION.

1. On appeal to district court from an order of the county commissioners fixing salaries of county officials, minutes of the clerk of the board of county commissioners, containing the order appealed from, and stating that board convened pursuant to call of chairman, held competent.

2. On appeal to district court from order of county commissioners fixing salaries of county officials, evidence does not show that meeting was unlawfully held and order appealed from invalid under C. S., secs. 3411-3413, 3699, relative to duty of board of county commissioners in fixing annual salaries and providing for dates of regular and special meetings.

3. Under C. S., sec. 3512, district court, on appeal from order of county commissioners fixing salaries of county officials must make findings and conclusions, and remand matter with instructions to board of county commissioners to make order accordingly.

4. Board of county commissioners may fix salaries of county officials as provided by C. S., sec. 3699, without hearing any evidence, on information coming to it on account of performance of its duties.

5. County commissioners, in fixing salaries of county officials under C. S., sec. 3699, held not to have abused discretion by reducing all salaries at least ten per cent.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District for Twin Falls County. Hon. Henry F. Ensign, Presiding Judge.

Appeal by defendant and cross-appeal by plaintiff from judgment of district court affirming in part and reversing in part order of board of county commissioners fixing salaries of county officials. Reversed.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

S. L Hodgin, for Appellants Etter et al.

Boards of county commissioners are bodies of special and limited jurisdiction, and all the necessary jurisdictional facts must appear upon the record of their proceedings. (11 Cyc. 398; Fremont Co. v. Brandon, 6 Idaho 482, 56 P. 264; Smith v. Canyon County Consol. School Dist., 39 Idaho 222, 226 P. 1070.)

The mere recital in the board's minutes that the acts requisite to confer jurisdiction have been performed is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction, since the presumption of jurisdiction does not attach to the actions of the board in statutory proceedings. (Smith v. Canyon County Consol. School Dist., supra.)

An adjournment of a regular meeting of the board of county commissioners to meet "pursuant to the call of the chairman" is not a compliance with the statutory provision that such meetings may be adjourned "from time to time" until all the business before the board is disposed of. Such adjournment is an adjournment sine die and closes such regular session. (C. S., sec. 3411; Gilbert v. Canyon County, 14 Idaho 437, 94 P. 1029.)

Where an appeal is taken from an order of a board of county commissioners, the district court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may affirm, reverse or modify the order, but may not itself take over and exercise the authority conferred by statute upon such board of fixing the salaries of elective county officers. (C. S., secs. 3512, 3699; Gorman v. County Commrs., 1 Idaho 627; Campbell v. Board of Commrs., 4 Idaho 181, 37 P. 329; Reynolds v. Board of Commrs., 6 Idaho 787, 59 P. 730; Criddle v. Board of Co. Commrs., 42 Idaho 811, 248 P. 465.)

O. W. Witham and Bothwell & Chapman, for Appellant Board of County Commissioners.

The lower court was without jurisdiction to fix the salaries of the probate judge and county superintendent of schools. (C. S., secs. 3509, 3512, 3699; Criddle v. Board of Co. Commrs., 42 Idaho 811, 248 P. 465.)

The meeting of the board held on May 8, 1924, at which the order appealed from was made, was valid. (Criddle v. Board of Co. Commrs., supra; C. S., secs. 491, 3411, 3699, 7933; Gilbert v. Canyon County, 14 Idaho 437, 94 P. 1029; Smith v. Canyon County C. S. Dist., 39 Idaho 222, 226 P. 1070.)

Alleged errors as to the admission and rejection of evidence are immaterial. (Reynolds v. Board of Commrs., 6 Idaho 787, 59 P. 730; Criddle v. Board of Commrs., supra.)

VARIAN, Commissioner. Brinck, Johnson, CC., Wm. E. Lee, C. J., Budge, Taylor and T. Bailey Lee, JJ., concurring, Givens, J., concurs in the conclusion.

OPINION

VARIAN, Commissioner.--

On May 8, 1924, the appellant board of county commissioners entered an order on the minutes of a meeting held that date fixing the salaries of clerk of the district court and ex-officio auditor and recorder, treasurer and tax collector, sheriff, probate judge, coroner, assessor, superintendent of schools and surveyor, for the term beginning with the second Monday in January, 1925, to the second Monday in January, 1927. It is conceded that there was no power to fix the clerk's salary as the term did not begin until 1927. The order reduced the coroner's and surveyor's salaries from $ 200 to $ 100 per annum, the probate judge from $ 2,000 to $ 1,500, and the superintendent of schools from $ 1,800 to $ 1,500 per annum. The annual salaries of the other officers were reduced ten per cent. Appellants, Etter et al., appealed to the district court, where a trial was had and the district judge found the board had abused its discretion, making findings and conclusions, and decreed the salary of the superintendent of schools at $ 1,700 and the probate judge at $ 1,800, adjudging the order fixing the clerk's salary void, and sustaining the board in all the other instances. The board of county commissioners appeals from the judgment in so far as it purports to fix the salaries of the county superintendent and probate judge, and the plaintiffs, Etter et al., appeal from the judgment except only in so far as it relates to the salary of the clerk of the district court, etc.

The first assignment of error by appellants, Etter et al., relates to the jurisdiction of the board of county commissioners to make the order fixing salaries, the court having failed to make any finding as to the validity of the meeting of May 8, 1924, when the order originally appealed from was made.

The question of jurisdiction was not raised at the trial, nor in the notice of appeal which expressly designated the grounds thereof, and no evidence was introduced tending in any manner to show that either side questioned the validity of said order or the jurisdiction of the board to make it. Everyone apparently took the validity of the order for granted. Counsel for Etter et al. states in his brief that the question was suggested to the trial court in his brief submitted after the trial. C. C. Siggins, clerk of the board of county commissioners, read into the record the order of the board appealed from, beginning as follows:

"Twin Falls, Idaho, May 8th, 1924, 10:00 A. M. The regular session of the board convened at this time pursuant to the call of the chairman. Present: All members and the clerk."

Then follows the order appealed from. On motion, all of this witness' testimony was stricken, notwithstanding which the court found that the board met on the date mentioned "pursuant to the call of the chairman." Having excluded all of the testimony of this witness, there is no evidence in the record to support this part of the finding. We think these minutes were competent evidence and should not have been excluded.

Assuming that these minutes are properly before the court, are they sufficient to sustain the contention of appellants, Etter et al., that the meeting was not properly held and the act of the board in fixing the salaries void?

C. S., sec. 3699, makes it the duty of the board of county commissioners, at its regular session in April next preceding any general election, to "fix the annual salaries of the several county officers, except prosecuting attorney, to be elected at said general election, for a term commencing on the second Monday of January next after said meeting, and in no case shall the salary of any county officer be less than the lowest amount hereafter designated for such officer, and in no case shall it be higher than the highest amount hereafter designated for such officer."

Then follows a schedule of minimum and maximum amounts for each office. The board in the case at bar kept within the limitations of this statute in making its order.

The statute (C. S., sec. 3411) fixes the second Monday in April as the date of the regular meeting...