Fawcett v. Woodbury County

• Decision Date: 11 December 1880
• Citation: 7 N.W. 483,55 Iowa 154
• Parties: FAWCETT v. WOODBURY COUNTY
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

7 N.W. 483

55 Iowa 154

FAWCETT v. WOODBURY COUNTY

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 11, 1880

Appeal from Woodbury District Court.

ACTION to recover compensation as deputy treasurer and collector of delinquent taxes. The plaintiff was appointed deputy treasurer of Woodbury county by one Kent, treasurer of the county, under section 859 of the Code. He entered upon and discharged the duties of his office, and has been paid the five per cent allowed by statute on the amount collected. This action is brought to recover five per cent in addition to the amount allowed by statute, and upon the alleged ground that the board of supervisors of the county agreed to give him such extra compensation.

The defendant denies that the board of supervisors made such agreement, and avers moreover that if such agreement was made it would be ultra vires. There was a trial without a jury and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

REVERSED.

S. M Marsh and M. B. Davis, for appellant.

Fawcett & Pardoe, for appellee.

OPINION

ADAMS CH. J.

Section 303, subdivision 14, of the Code, provides that the board of supervisors has power to fix the compensation of all services of county and township officers not otherwise provided for by law. It seems clear that where the compensation is provided for by law the board of supervisors cannot increase it. This appears not only from the fact that the power is not given, but is excluded by implication. Moreover, where compensation for public service is provided for by law, it must be conclusively presumed, we think, in the absence of any other provision, to be sufficient.

It may be that the five per cent provided by law, in the case at bar, was not sufficient to compensate the plaintiff. But if not he should have resigned. We must presume that the amount provided was sufficient to command the requisite service from somebody.

It is said, however, that the power of the board of supervisors to give more compensation than is provided for by law was determined in Hawk v. Marion County, 48 Iowa 472, and Wilhelm v. Cedar County, 50 Iowa 254.

In the former case it was held that the board might offer a reward for the recovery of money stolen from the county, and in the latter case that the board might employ a special agent to obtain promissory notes from taxpayers, from whom taxes could not be collected by any compulsory process, and that the county should pay...