Johnson v. Deuser

• Citation: 56 S.W.2d 803
• Decision Date: 07 February 1933
• Docket Number: No. 22179.,22179.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Parties: JOHNSON, Clerk of Board, v. DEUSER, County Treasurer, et al.

56 S.W.2d 803

JOHNSON, Clerk of Board, v. DEUSER, County Treasurer, et al.

No. 22179.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

February 7, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; Robt. W. McElhinney, Judge.

"Not to be published in State Reports."

Interpleader suit by Holman Johnson, Clerk of the Board of Plumbing Inspectors and Supervisors of St. Louis County, against Phillip Deuser, Treasurer of St. Louis County, and Albert Wehmeyer and others, as members of and constituting the Board of Plumbing Inspectors and Supervisors of St. Louis County. From the judgment, defendant members of the Board of Plumbing Inspectors and Supervisors appeal.

Affirmed.

Ralph, Nolan, Rush & Brown, of Clayton, for appellants.

Robert F. Stanton, of Clayton, for respondent Deuser.

BENNICK, C.

This is an interpleader suit which was brought by Holman Johnson, the clerk of the board of plumbing inspectors and supervisors of St. Louis county, against Phillip Deuser, the county treasurer, and Albert Wehmeyer, Arthur H. Kuhlmann, and Peter C. Bopp, the judges of the county court and ex officio members of the board in question. The purpose of the suit was to have the defendants interplead, and to have the court determine as between the defendants to whom a fund in the hands of plaintiff, derived from the operation of the plumbing inspection law, should go.

The cause was submitted to the court upon the pleadings, the controversy involving nothing but the construction of certain statutes; and in due course the court entered its judgment, finding that the fund should be paid over to defendant Deuser. Following the entry of such judgment, defendants Wehmeyer, Kuhlmann, and Bopp have jointly appealed.

Originally the law (section 13887, R. S. 1919) provided that the board of health in every county should constitute the board of plumbing inspectors and supervisors. However, in 1921 (Laws 1921, p. 558), the law was repealed and a new law enacted (now appearing as sections 14853-14871, R. S. 1929 [Mo. St. Ann. §§ 14853-14871]), by which it was provided (section 14864) that the county court of every county subject to the act should constitute the board in question. Subsequent changes in the law as originally enacted (Laws 1927, p. 383, and Laws 1931, p. 287 [Mo. St. Ann. §§ 14853, 14866]), having to do with the territorial limits to which the act shall apply and the personnel of the board of examiners provided for by the act, have nothing to do with the question now before the court for determination.

It is conceded that St. Louis county is operating under the act; that appellants came into office on January 1, 1931; and that the fund in question, in the amount of $1,170.97, represents the surplus of unused fees derived from the operation of the act between the time when appellants came into office and September 30, 1931.

The act provides that the board of plumbing inspectors and supervisors shall appoint such inspectors as may be necessary, and further provides for the charging of inspection fees. Inasmuch as the present controversy involves the question of whether the balance of unused fees for the period stated should go to appellants as members of the board or be paid over to the county treasurer, subsection (d) of section 14864 becomes highly material. The same is as follows: "The inspection fee for each building made hereunder shall be $5.00, and shall be paid to the boards of plumbing inspectors and supervisors of the several counties; such fees shall be kept in a separate fund and shall be used to pay the salaries of inspectors and other expenses of conducting said board, and any surplus thereof shall be retained by the members of said boards equally as compensation for their services as members of such board."

Prior to the period in question, the members of the county court as ex officio members of the board of plumbing inspectors and supervisors had at fixed intervals been paid the surplus of unused fees in the hands of the clerk of the board; nor is there any controversy over the right of prior members of the board to have received and retained such funds. As the law originally stood, county judges were paid under several different statutes, providing for fees, salary, and compensation to be paid them for their services, among other things, as members of the county court, and also as members of the boards of road overseers, equalization and appeals, and plumbing inspectors and supervisors. However, in 1929 (Laws 1929, p. 151), a new statute was enacted (now appearing as section 2092, R. S. 1929 [Mo. St. Ann. § 2092]), which, in so far as it applied to St. Louis county, reads as follows: "In all counties of this state now or hereafter having one hundred fifty thousand inhabitants and less than three hundred thousand inhabitants, the judges of the county court shall receive an annual salary of forty-five hundred dollars. Said salary to be in lieu of the per diem heretofore allowed by law to said judges as judges of the county court, and in lieu of the salary heretofore allowed by law to said judges as members of the board of road overseers, under the provisions of section 7892, R. S. 1929, and in lieu of all other fees, compensation, or salaries, heretofore allowed by law to said judges, except the per diem as allowed to said judges as members of the board of equalization and board of appeals."

Nothing in the above was affected by the repeal and re-enactment of the statute in 1931 (Laws 1931, p. 190 [Mo. St. Ann. § 2092]), the only change being the elimination of salaries to county judges in smaller counties.

Notwithstanding the fact that the above statute having to do with the compensation of county judges was passed in 1929, it appears that the then judges of the county court did not thereafter receive their salaries thereunder; the theory being, so the briefs recite, that the statute was one providing for an increase in salary during the term for which the incumbents in office had been elected, and that it thus fell within the inhibition of article 6, section 33, of our Constitution. Consequently, it was not until the present appellants came into office on January 1, 1931, that the members of the county court of St. Louis county began to receive the salary of $4,500 a year.

Thus the chief point in controversy at once appears, which is: Does the provision of section 2092 that the judges shall receive a stated salary, which shall be in lieu of all the fees, compensation, and salary theretofore allowed them except the per diem allowed them as members of the board of equalization and appeals, operate to nullify section 14864 (d) in so far as the latter authorizes them as members of the board of plumbing inspectors and supervisors to retain any surplus on hand as compensation for their services as members thereof?

We need scarcely mention that the object and purpose of all rational construction and interpretation of statutory enactments is to effectuate the real purpose and intent of the legislative body as expressed therein. Many other rules and tests are also applied as circumstances seem to warrant, but whatever the rule may be, and however useful in arriving at a proper construction of...