Jennings v. Fayette County.

• Decision Date: 03 February 1881
• Citation: 97 Ill. 419,1881 WL 10423
• Parties: JESSE D. JENNINGSv.FAYETTE COUNTY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

97 Ill. 419

1881 WL 10423 (Ill.)

JESSE D. JENNINGS

v.FAYETTE COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Mt. Vernon Feb. 3, 1881.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

WRIT OF ERROR to the Appellate Court for the Fourth District;-- heard in that court on error to the Circuit Court of Fayette county; the Hon. CHARLES S. ZANE, Judge, presiding.

Mr. ANTHONY THORNTON, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. E. M. ASHCRAFT, for the defendant in error.

Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:

It appears, from the record, that Jesse D. Jennings was sheriff of the county of Fayette for one full term, from December, 1874. At the September term, prior to his election, the board of supervisors fixed the compensation of the incoming sheriff at the sum of $1200 per annum, and ordered that such sheriff be allowed $800 per year for “pay of deputies.” While these orders were in force the sheriff elect entered upon the discharge of the duties of such office, and regularly thereafter made, as he was required to do by law, semi-annual reports of the fees of his office by him collected. His reports show, that, at the date they were made, the sheriff had not collected sufficient fees to liquidate his compensation and allowance for deputy hire for the period covered by the reports, and stated the amounts of such deficiencies.

On the 6th of March, 1878, claimant presented his account to the board of supervisors for the balance due him for deputy hire ($1600), from which he deducted two small items, leaving a balance of $1474.65. The board of supervisors disallowed the claim, but, on appeal, the circuit court allowed the full amount of such claim. That judgment was reversed by the Appellate Court, and final judgment rendered against claimant for costs. The case comes to this court on error.

As to the facts of this case, there is no disagreement. The Appellate Court seems to have placed its decision on the ground the county was not liable for any part of claimant's account, no matter whether the claim arose out of the allowances made to him for compensation, or to him “for pay of deputies.” The judgment of that court was clearly right, and conforms to the construction heretofore given by this court to section 10, article 10 of the constitution.

Section 9, article 10 of the constitution, to which our attention has been directed as bearing on the decision, has exclusive application to the county of Cook, and its construction is not now involved. The rights of claimant are definitely fixed by section 10, article 10 of the constitution, and by legislation in conformity with it. That section makes it the duty of the county board to fix the compensation of all county officers, with the amount of their necessary clerk hire, stationery, fuel, and other expenses, and in all cases where fees are provided for, such compensation shall be paid only out of, and shall in no case exceed, the fees actually collected. The same section forbids that the compensation of such officers shall be increased or diminished during their term of office, and enjoins upon them the duty to pay “all fees and allowances” by them received in excess of their compensation, into the county treasury.

Adhering, as we do, to the definition of the word “compensation,” as given in the former decisions of this court, as that word is used in the constitution and the statutes, the case presents no difficulty. It is plain the ““compensation” of a county officer, where fees are provided for, must be paid out of, and can in no case exceed, the fees actually collected. That is a limitation on the county board. They can not pay such officers the “““compensation” allowed to them out of any fund other than fees. “Compensation” of county officers may or may not include expenses of the office. It is not alone...