Harding v. County of Montgomery

• Citation: 7 N.W. 396,55 Iowa 41
• Parties: HARDING v. THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY
• Decision Date: 08 December 1880
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

7 N.W. 396

55 Iowa 41

HARDING v. THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 8, 1880

Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court.

THE plaintiff, as sheriff of Montgomery county, conveyed certain convicts from Red Oak, the county seat of said county, to the penitentiary at Fort Madison. He also conveyed a minor to the reform school at Eldora, and certain insane persons to the hospital for the insane at Mount Pleasant. He also attended with a prisoner certain proceedings in habeas corpus. A difference having arisen between the parties as to the plaintiff's compensation, an agreed statement of facts was prepared and submitted to the Circuit Court. Some of the claims made by the plaintiff were allowed by the court, and others were rejected. Both parties appeal.

REVERSED.

Miller & Bartholomew, for plaintiff.

W. S Strawn, for defendant.

OPINION

ROTHROCK, J.

I.

Prior to June 1st, 1879, the plaintiff conveyed eight convicts to the penitentiary, the distance being two hundred and sixty-one miles. At the respective meetings of the board of supervisors prior to 1880, the plaintiff presented to said board duly verified bills in which he charged sixteen cents per mile for the said two hundred and sixty-one miles, for each of said convicts, which said charges were allowed and paid.

At the January term, 1880, of said board, the plaintiff presented a bill for conveying the same persons in which he charged the defendant with sixteen cents per mile from Red Oak to Fort Madison and return, and credited this bill with what had been allowed in his previous bills, and claimed payment for the balance. The board of supervisors and the court below refused to make an allowance in payment of such balance.

In our opinion this ruling of the court was correct. It does not appear from the record before us why the whole claim was not presented in the first instance. It does appear that plaintiff was allowed all he claimed. The allowance of the claim by the board was an adjudication and binding upon the parties. Parties having claims of this character ought not to be allowed to divide them, and present one installment and afterwards others. The settlement and payment of claims ought not to be left in such uncertainty that a claimant may make new and different charges for the same service. Without more of a showing of surprise, accident or mistake than we have presented in this case, we are disposed to hold the claims which were preferred and paid as full satisfaction for the services.

II. After the first day of June, 1879, the plaintiff conveyed certain other convicts to the penitentiary. He rendered to the board of supervisors his bill, charging for such services sixteen cents per mile from Red Oak to Fort Madison and return. An allowance of sixteen cents per mile was made for one way only, and the balance, or the return mileage, was rejected. The court below held this was incorrect, and that plaintiff was entitled to sixteen cents per mile for the miles traveled in making the round trip.

This ruling involves a construction of that clause of section 3788 of the Code which fixes the compensation of sheriffs for such services. It is as follows: "For conveying each convict to the penitentiary, and as full compensation therefor sixteen cents for each mile traveled, to be computed from the county seat where the conviction took place by the most direct route of travel; the same to be paid out of the county treasury."

We think a fair construction of this language is that payment should be made for each mile...