Hasting v. Jasper County

• Decision Date: 12 April 1926
• Docket Number: 25161
• Parties: C. E. HASTING, Appellant, v. JASPER COUNTY
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

282 S.W. 700

314 Mo. 144

C. E. HASTING, Appellant, v. JASPER COUNTY

No. 25161

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 12, 1926

Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court; Hon. S.W. Bates, Judge.

Reversed and remanded (with directions).

C E. Hasting for appellant.

(1) The population of any county for the purpose of paying the salary of any county officer is determined by multiplying the highest number of votes cast at the last previous general election by five. Sec. 11016, R. S. 1919; State ex rel v. Barby, 272 S.W. 921. (2) Probation officers are county officers. Reed v. Hammond, 123 P. 346; Nicholl v. Koster, 108 P. 302; State ex rel. v Imel, 242 Mo. 293; State ex rel. Holmes v. Dillion, 90 Mo. 229; Laws 1921, p. 255.

Roy Coyne and Frank L. Forlow for respondent.

(1) Under Article VI, Revised Statutes 1919, commencing with Section 2591, is found the law at that time concerning Juvenile Courts in counties having 50,000 inhabitants and over. And in Section 2601, of this article, is the section concerning salaries of probation officers. And this was the salary law concerning such juvenile officers until the enactment of the Act of 1921, Laws 1921, page 255, repealing Section 2601 in lieu thereof, and that this section as amended has been the law in this State since April 1, 1921, and was at all times stated in this cause. (2) Jasper County was a county with over 50,000 inhabitants, and less than 90,000, and under said law as amended came within the provision fixing the maximum salary in such counties at $ 1,000 per annum, the amount paid by the county court to plaintiff. The Federal census for 1920, gives the population of Jasper County at 75,941, and oral evidence was offered on the trial to show that the population had decreased very much from the time this census was taken until the time of the trial of this cause. The plaintiff claims that, by figuring out some vote and multiplying it by five, he arrives at the population of the county for fixing his salary, but does not claim that the county has the required population. In order to entitle the plaintiff to what he claims or any part thereof, there would have to be over 90,000 population in the county, and reading this salary law, there is no way under the evidence, in this cause, to so read this law, as to give or entitle the plaintiff to more than $ 1000 per annum. (3) Under the Juvenile Court Law, above cited, the appointment of officers and deputies, by the judge, shall be at the pleasure of the judge making the appointment. For more than twenty years, we have had in this State what is now Section 11016, Revised Statutes 1919, which provides "that in fixing the salary of county officers, and in determining the population of any county as a basis for the amount of fees he may retain the highest number of votes cast at the last previous election for any office shall be multiplied by five." This section is found in the Chapter 100, under heading of salaries and fees of state and other officers, and applies to county officers elected for stated terms, and is used in fixing salaries, and as a basis for adjusting fees of such elective offices; while the probation officer is appointed at the pleasure of the judge, at a fixed salary. We have many salaries paid by the county courts to persons who are not county officers. The probation officer of Jasper County is not a county officer under the law creating juvenile courts. There is no plan stated in the law creating the juvenile courts, and providing for the appointment of probation officers, for determining the population of the various counties by the judge in fixing the salary, and it only fixes the maximum salary. The judge who fixed appellant's salary in this case knew at the time that Jasper County had a population of less than 90,000 inhabitants, and that the maximum salary could not be over $ 1,000 per annum. In the case of some of the county officers the law itself fixes the manner of determining the population. It would be a very safe way for the judge appointing probation officers to take the last Federal census as the guide, and not exceed that, especially where no provision of the law points out a way to determine the population. Before the judge could have fixed the appellant's salary at $ 1200 he had to find that the population of the county then was 90,000 and less than 110,000.

OPINION

Otto, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for Jasper County, in an action appellant brought for a balance of salary he alleges is due him as probation officer of Jasper County, Missouri.

There is no dispute about the facts. On the 23rd day of November, 1922, the appellant was appointed probation officer of Jasper County by the judge of the circuit court sitting as a juvenile court of that county, and his salary fixed at $ 100 per month. In January, 1923, the County Court of Jasper County refused to pay the appellant the sum of $ 100 per month as ordered by the said court, but paid appellant the sum of $ 83 per month. Appellant did not accept the salary as fixed by the county court, and instituted this suit to collect the difference between his salary as allowed and fixed by the juvenile court and the amount fixed by the county court. The amount thereof is $ 66.68.

The briefs present the single question, whether or not Section 11016, Revised Statutes 1919, controls for the purpose of determining the population of Jasper County as a basis for ascertaining the salary of appellant.

The law fixing the salaries of probation officers is the Act of 1921 (Laws 1921, p. 255):

"Sec. 2601. Salaries of probation officers. The probation officer shall receive such salary as the circuit court, or the criminal court when constituted as a juvenile court under this act, may prescribe, not exceeding $ 3,000 per annum in counties of $ 500,000 inhabitants and over; and not exceeding $ 2,000 in counties of $ 110,000 and less than 500,000 inhabitants; and not exceeding $ 1500 per annum in counties of 90,000 and less than 110,000 inhabitants; and not exceeding $ 1000 in counties of 50,000 and less than 90,000 inhabitants. . . . The salaries of the probation officer and his deputies shall be paid monthly out of the funds of the county. Actual disbursements for necessary expense, exclusive of office expenses, made by probation officers while in the performance of their duties, shall be reimbursed to them out of the county funds after approval by the judge of the juvenile court; but no officer shall be allowed for such disbursements a greater sum than $ 200 in any one year."

This law classifies probation officers according to the population of their respective counties and fixes the maximum amount that might be paid. It will be observed that the act does not provide a method by which the population of the respective counties might be ascertained, nor does it provide that the Federal census be used. It is urged by plaintiff that Section 11016, Revised Statutes 1919, is applicable for the purpose of determining the population of the respective counties in this State and classifying the probation officers. Section 11016, Revised Statutes 1919, provides:

"Salaries of...