Hoffman v. Chippewa Cnty.

• Decision Date: 21 June 1890
• Parties: HOFFMAN ET AL. v. CHIPPEWA COUNTY.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

77 Wis. 214

45 N.W. 1083

HOFFMAN ET AL.

v.CHIPPEWA COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 21, 1890.

Appeal from circuit court, Chippewa county; R. D. MARSHALL, Judge.T. J. Connor, Dist. Atty., for appellant.

Dickinson & Buchanan, for respondents.

COLE, C. J.

The learned circuit court sustained the demurrer to the answer of the defendant on the ground that as the statute provides, when the number of descriptions in the list was less than 3,000, the printer publishing it should receive 30 cents for each lot or tract in the list, that this was controlling. The language of the statute is certainly clear and explicit on the subject. It is even mandatory in form, and says that “the printer who shall publish the list and notice of the time when the redemption of lands sold for the non-payment of taxes will expire shall receive thirty cents for each lot or tract of land in such list, for all the insertions.” Rev. St. § 1174. Thus the statutes expressly prescribe the fees which the printer shall receive, and the county clerk had no authority to make a contract which changed them. The statute, indeed, does not give the clerk any power to contract for the publication of the list where the number of descriptions in the list does not exceed 3,000. He is required to cause the list to be published as the statute prescribes, (section 1170,)--that is, he can select or designate the paper, but the compensation for the service has been fixed by the legislature. But, where the number of descriptions in the advertised list exceeds 3,000, there the county clerk is required to let by contract the publication to the lowest bidder, in the same manner, and with like conditions and limitations. as the county treasurer is authorized to contract for the publication of list of lands for delinquent taxes for sale. Section 1173.

In the case at bar, it is insisted that the contract which the clerk attempted to make with the plaintiffs amounted to nothing more than the designation of the paper in which the list should be published, but did not bind or compel the plaintiffs to do the work for less than the fees fixed by law. The principle of law relied on is that, when the compensation of a party performing services for the state is fixed by statute, it cannot be reduced by the officer or person by whom he is employed; and, since here the statute expressly declares that the printer shall receive 30 cents for each lot or tract of land in the advertised list, the compensation could not be diminished by any arrangement or contract which the county clerk might make in respect thereto. This contention of counsel is sustained by a number of well-considered decisions. Goldsborough v. U. S., Camp. Dec. 80; People v. Board of Police, 75 N. Y. 38;People v. French, 91 N. Y. 265;Kehn v. State, 93 N. Y. 291;Riley v. Mayor, 96 N. Y. 331. The following cases have likewise a bearing on the question we are considering: Beal v. Supervisors, 13 Wis. 501;State v. Purdy, 36 Wis. 213;State v. Mayor, 15 Lea, 697;Edmondson v. Jersey City, 48 N. J. Law, 121, 3 Atl. Rep. 120. We have already stated that the clerk had no power to enter into any contract for the...