Kenefick v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 19 February 1895
• Parties: KENEFICK v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

29 S.W. 838

127 Mo. 1

KENEFICK v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

February 19, 1895.

LOCAL AND SPECIAL LAWS — SHERIFF OF ST. LOUIS — ACT TO FIX COMPENSATION.

1. Act May 19, 1879, entitled "An act regulating the compensation of the sheriff of the city of St. Louis," is not in conflict with Const. 1875, art. 9, § 12, requiring the fees of county officers to be regulated by a law uniform in its application, it merely limiting the amount which the sheriff may retain from the fees of his office.

2. Const. 1875, art. 9, § 13, provides that the fees of no executive or ministerial officer of any municipality shall exceed $10,000 for any one year, and that every such officer shall make returns quarterly to the county court of fees received by him. Const. 1875, Schedule, § 15, requires that the general assembly shall pass all laws necessary to carry the constitution into full effect. Held, that Act May 19, 1879, directing the sheriff of the city of St. Louis to make report of his fees to the circuit court of the city and authorizing him to retain $10,000 per year out of the receipts of his office, being legislation necessary and appropriate to carry into effect the constitutional requirements, is not void, as being local or special, within the meaning of the constitution.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Jacob Klein, Judge.

Bill of interpleader by M. J. Kenefick against the city of St. Louis and E. H. Harrington, administrator, to settle claim to sum of money in his hands collected from defendant city as fees taxed in favor of defendant Harrington's intestate, as sheriff. From a judgment for defendant city of St. Louis, E. H. Harrington, administrator, appeals. Affirmed.

The petition in this case was a bill of interpleader, and set forth that the plaintiff was clerk of the St. Louis court of criminal correction; that Henry F. Harrington died in February, 1892, and that Edward H. Harrington was duly appointed his administrator; that during the years 1885, 1886, and 1887 the former was the duly-qualified sheriff of the city of St. Louis, and that during the year 1888, from January 1st to December 31st, he was in said office in said city; that during the month of November, 1888, plaintiff, as clerk of the St. Louis court of criminal correction, collected fees to the amount of $764.70 from the city (which were taxed as costs in favor of said Harrington, as sheriff, in various cases which had been disposed of in said court of criminal correction), as well as other items of fees due said sheriff, to the total amount of $991.51, all of which had been taxed as costs in divers causes in favor of said sheriff, and remained in the hands of said clerk; that the city of St. Louis claimed said fees by virtue of section 9, art. 20, p. 2159, Rev. St. 1889; and further claimed that said Harrington had already received for his services as sheriff (out of the fees of his office) the sum of $10,000, over and above the expenses allowed him in his settlements with the said city of St. Louis, and that the said fees now in the hands of said clerk should be paid to the treasurer of the city; that said Edward H. Harrington, administrator, claimed that he was entitled to said fees collected by plaintiff as aforesaid, and had demanded that the same be paid to him, and threatened to institute suit therefor. The foregoing is the substance of the petition, in the nature of a bill of interpleader. The money was paid into court, and the parties made their claims thereto, the said Harrington, administrator, by an interplea, in which it is set forth that said funds, so held by the plaintiff, were earned by the said sheriff, as fees of his office, and were payable to his administrator as part of the estate of said Henry F. Harrington, and that he, and he alone, was authorized to receive and collect the same, and that the codefendant, the city of St. Louis, had no right to the same, nor to require the plaintiff to pay the said fund to the said city of St. Louis, etc. The city of St. Louis, for answer and interplea, stated that said Henry F. Harrington, as sheriff, was entitled to receive and retain the sum of $10,000 for each year of his term of office, over and above all expenses allowed to him in this settlements as sheriff, and that during the year 1888 he did receive and retain the sum of $10,000 over and above all such expenses, as compensation of his office as sheriff, and that the excess of said sum of $10,000 belonged to the city of St. Louis, and should be paid to it; that it was the duty of the plaintiff, on the 1st of January, 1889, to pay over all said fees collected by him as aforesaid to the treasurer of the city of St. Louis; that this defendant had demanded payment of said fees from plaintiff, and threatened to bring suit against plaintiff. At the trial, Harrington's administrator rested his case on the pleadings, and the city of St. Louis offered in evidence the reports of said sheriff, for various periods, of six months each, in 1887 and 1888, the last ending December 31st, of that year. The proceedings and action of the circuit court in general term, balancing the accounts so reported, and making a finding in respect thereto, as to the amount in the hands of Mr. Harrington, as sheriff, were offered in evidence by the city. To the introduction of these reports, and the action of the court thereon, the interpleader, Harrington, objected that said reports were incompetent evidence, in that there was no valid law in force at the time authorizing or requiring such reports to be made, and the ascertainment of balances thereby shown was the result of an adjudication before a tribunal without jurisdiction, and such proceedings were null and void. This objection was overruled by the court, and said reports were introduced, to which action of the court the interpleader, Harrington, excepted. The reports sustained the claim of the city as above indicated, in that they tended to show that, during the last term of office of said Harrington, he had received in fees of his office, over and above the expenses thereof, $10,000 for each year of his term. And thereupon the court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, restraining and enjoining both defendants from instituting or prosecuting any suit against plaintiff for or on account of said sum of $991.50, so collected and received by him as fees earned by the said Henry F. Harrington, and that plaintiff be discharged of and from liability on account thereof to either of said defendants. It was also adjudged that, as between the said defendants, the defendant Edward H. Harrington, administrator of Henry F. Harrington, deceased, take nothing by his interplea herein of the fund of $991.50, in court, which was then awarded to the city of St. Louis, and the costs adjudged against the defendant Harrington. After the usual steps, the defendant Harrington, as administrator, appealed in due course.

E. T. Farish, for appellant. W. C. Marshall, for respondent city of St. Louis.

BARCLAY, J. (after stating the facts).

The facts out of which this litigation arose are sufficiently given in the statement opening the report of the case. That statement is in substance identical with the one submitted to the court on behalf of the appellant, who represents the estate of the late sheriff, Mr. Harrington. We have modified it only in some immaterial respects to shorten its recitals. The details of the procedure on the circuit are unimportant, since the appellant concedes that the appeal must fail if it be held that the statute which he challenges is valid. It will be noted that the controversy concerns fees accrued during the year 1888.

The decisive point in the case is upon the constitutionality of "An act regulating the compensation of the sheriff of the city of St. Louis," approved May 19, 1879 (Laws 1879, p. 97; Rev. St. 1889, p. 2159, §§ 7-12). That act, in brief, directs the sheriff of the city of St. Louis to keep accounts of all fees accruing to him by virtue of his office, as well as of all expenses thereof. It requires him to make reports of all those fees and expenses every six months, and said accounts are to be audited by the circuit court of the city of St. Louis in general term. He is entitled to retain, out of the receipts of his office, $10,000 for each year's services, and is to turn over any excess, beyond that amount, to the city treasurer, for the use of the city. Certain penalties are also provided for breaches of the law. The above is a bare outline of the act, but it will be sufficient for present purposes. The statute is a public one, and its precise terms are readily accessible.

The appellant questions its validity on two grounds:

1. First it is attacked as in conflict with section 12 of article 9 of the constitution of 1875, viz.: "County Officers — Fees of. The general assembly shall, by a law uniform in its operation, provide for and regulate the fees of all county officers, and for this purpose may classify the counties by population."...