Huffaker v. Board of County Commissioners of Bonneville County

• Decision Date: 20 July 1934
• Docket Number: 6077
• Citation: 35 P.2d 260,54 Idaho 715
• Parties: W. D. HUFFAKER and IVALOO JEPPSON, Respondents, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BONNEVILLE COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

35 P.2d 260

54 Idaho 715

W. D. HUFFAKER and IVALOO JEPPSON, Respondents, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BONNEVILLE COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO, Appellant

No. 6077

Supreme Court of Idaho

July 20, 1934

CLERKS OF PROBATE COURT-SALARIES, DETERMINATION OF.

1. Board of county commissioners held not to have abused discretion in reducing salary of clerk of probate court from $95 to $50 per month, where under evidence board could have exercised discretion either way (I. C. A., secs. 30-1204, 30-1205).

2. Abuse of discretion in board of county commissioners fixing salary of clerk of probate court occurs only when board exceeds bounds of reason when all circumstances before it are considered (I. C. A., sec. 30-1204).

3. Court should not revise action of board of county commissioners fixing salary of clerk of probate court in absence of clear evidence of such manifest abuse of power as to show that board failed to exercise legal discretion (I. C A., secs. 30-1204, 30-1205).

4. Responsibility of determining just and sufficient salary for clerk of probate court, considered desire for legitimate economies, adequate service to county and public, just compensation to employee, and due regard for rights and interest of taxpayers, rests on board of county commissioners subject to control by courts for abuse of discretion.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, for Bonneville County. Hon. Robert M. Terrell, Presiding Judge.

Appeal from judgment of the district court, modifying an order of the Board of County Commissioners, fixing the salary of the clerk of the probate court. Reversed with instructions to reinstate the order of the Board of County Commissioners.

Judgment reversed with instructions. Costs to appellants.

Alvin Denman, for Appellant.

Since the fixing of salaries is within the discretion of the Board of Commissioners, the court should not interfere with this discretion in the absence of clear evidence of such manifest abuse of power and disregard of the statute as to show that the board failed to exercise a legal discretion. (Northern Trust Co. v. Snyder, 113 Wis. 516, 89 N.W 460, 90 Am. St. 867; Criddle v. Board of Commrs., 42 Idaho 811, 248 P. 465.)

A. A Merrill and O. A. Johannesen, for Respondents.

Discretion is the equitable decision of what is just and proper under the circumstances. It does not permit of arbitrary, uncontrolled or unlimited action contrary to law or equity. It must not be governed by humor or malice. (Watt v. Stanfield et al., 36 Idaho 366, 372, 210 P. 998; Cyclopedic Law Dictionary, p. 285; Wharton's Law Lexicon, 11th ed., p. 476; 14 Cyc. 382, 383; Independent Steel & Wire Co. v. New Mexico Central R. R. Co., 25 N.M. 160, 178 P. 842.)

GIVENS, J. Morgan and Wernette, JJ., concur. HOLDEN, J., Budge, C. J., Dissenting.

OPINION

GIVENS, J.

Appellants pursuant to section 30-1204, I. C. A., January 9, 1933, fixed the salaries for the various deputies and clerks in the county offices, that of the clerk in the probate judge's office being set at $ 600 a year. Thereafter the probate judge filed a written protest against the amount allowed for his clerk.

February 17, 1933, pursuant to section 30-1205, I. C. A., the board fixed the final budget at the amount above set forth, whereupon respondents, the probate judge and the probate clerk respectively, appealed to the district court urging that the board had abused its discretion in reducing the salary of the clerk of the probate court from $ 95 (which it had been during the preceding biennium) to $ 50 per month.

This appeal is from the judgment of the trial court reversing the board.

Evidence was introduced by both parties as to the salaries of other clerks, deputies and bookkeepers, as fixed in the budget, all except the county superintendent's and the prosecuting attorney's stenographers, which were the same as that of the clerk of the probate court, in sums ranging from twice to approximately three times that fixed for the clerk in the probate court's office.

The board's theory as disclosed by the evidence was that the clerk in the probate court need be employed there only half time, and the other one-half could be used in the prosecuting attorney's office or the county superintendent's office, in which event the salary would have been at the rate of $ 100 per month. The evidence further shows that the respondent, Ivaloo Jeppson, was employed by the county, as probation officer, at a salary of $ 15 per month.

The evidence covered the field of salaries of similar officials in other counties, and the relative amount of work required of the clerk of the probate court and other similar positions, both in Bonneville and other counties in the southern and southeastern part of the state.

Respondents concede that unless the board had abused its discretion in fixing the salary, respondents were entitled to no relief in the district court but urged that the evidence shows such abuse of discretion.

While it may be conceded that the evidence is sufficient to have justified the board in either fixing the salary of the clerk of the probate court as it did or in fixing it as requested by respondents, such divergent justified possibilities do not justify the inference the board abused its discretion in the type of proceeding here under consideration.

The gauge of conduct herein as laid down in Criddle v. Board of Commrs., 42 Idaho 811, 248 P. 465, being that an abuse of discretion occurs only when the tribunal or board charged with its exercise "'exceeds the bounds of reason all the circumstances before it being considered'" and:

"' . . . . the court should not revise their action (the board's) in the absence of clear evidence of such manifest abuse of power and disregard of the statute as to show that the board failed to exercise a legal discretion, . . . . '"

Clearly if the board could have exercised their discretion either way, to exercise it either way, would not be an abuse, and, that is all that can be said here, and as further stated in the opinion:

"The question is not what we (the court) think these salaries ought to be or what the able trial judge thought they should be, but is rather, all the circumstances being considered, whether the order of the board clearly exceeded the bounds of reason and constituted such an abuse of power as to show that the board failed to exercise a legal discretion."

The responsibility of determining a just and sufficient salary, taking into consideration a laudable desire for legitimate economies, adequate service to the county and public, just compensation to the employee, and due regard for the rights and interests of the taxpayers, rests on the board, subject to control, by the courts for abuse, and, the evidence herein does not show the board has in this case overstepped the bounds of a reasonable discretion.

Judgment reversed with instructions to reinstate the order of the Board of County Commissioners.

Costs to appellants.

Morgan and Wernette, JJ., concur.

DISSENT BY: HOLDEN

HOLDEN J., Dissenting.--

January 9, 1933, appellant Board of County Commissioners adopted a preliminary budget among other things, tentatively fixing the compensation of clerk in the office of the probate judge of Bonneville county at $ 50 per month. The compensation for several years prior thereto had been $ 95 per month. February 17, 1933, appellant adopted the preliminary budget, thus finally fixing the clerk's compensation at $ 50 per month. Both the probate judge and the clerk appealed to the district court. That court heard testimony, admitted documentary evidence, made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and entered judgment in favor of respondents and against the board directing that the order of the board so fixing the clerk's compensation, be modified by increasing such compensation from $ 600 to $ 1140; in other words, from $ 50 per month to $ 95 per month, from which the board appeals to this court.

The assignment of errors, taken and considered as a whole, appear to present the single question, which I deem to be decisive, as to whether the district court erred in holding that appellants abused their discretion in fixing the compensation of the clerk of the probate court of Bonneville county at $ 50 per month.

Appellant Board of County Commissioners, in fixing the compensation of the clerk, acted under "The County Budget Law," title 30, chapter 12, I. C. A.

In determining whether the lower court erred in adjudging that the appellant board abused its discretion in fixing the compensation of the respondent clerk, some consideration must be given to the question as to whether the legislature did, or did not, by the enactment of the County Budget Law, intend that thereafter county commissioners must, in the exercise of quasi-judicial discretion, be governed by the documentary evidence submitted to them by county budget officers, rather than, as formerly, acting largely, if not solely, upon information coming to them by reason and on account of the performance of their general duties as county commissioners, necessarily involving much undependable hearsay.

The matter of fixing the compensation of appointive officials of the several counties, involves the performance of a most important public duty, vitally affecting county governments throughout the state, justifying, I conclude, a complete, even though rather lengthy, statement of applicable law in force at the time the County Budget Law was enacted, as well as a like statement of the applicable provisions of that statute, for purposes of comparison and clarification, as well as for the purpose of determining the legislative intent in the enactment of the County Budget Law.

The 1899 session of the legislature (...