Larue County Bd. of Ed. v. Scott

• Decision Date: 14 December 1956
• Citation: 296 S.W.2d 682
• Parties: LARUE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant, v. Earl SCOTT, Sheriff, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 682

296 S.W.2d 682

LARUE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant, v. Earl SCOTT, Sheriff, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 14, 1956.

Ben B. Fowler, Dailey & Fowler, Frankfort, for appellant.

J. T. Hatcher, Hatcher & Lewis, Elizabethtown, for appellee.

STEWART, Judge.

Earl Scott, sheriff of Larue County, filed this action against the Larue County Board of Education, seeking a declaration of rights to determine the amount to which he was entitled for collection of taxes for the board for the year 1954.

The lower court found (1) that the fiscal court of Larue County having fixed the annual compensation of the sheriff at $7,200 and his deputy hire at $5,500, such amounts must be accepted as evidence of reasonable compensation for these officials for the year 1954; (2) that the court was bound by the uncontradicted evidence that the sheriff's office devotes 75 per cent of its time each year in collecting taxes of all kinds; (3) that $200 general office expense, $340 clerical hire for school tax collection work, and $100 for transportation expense necessary in the collection of school taxes be allowed for the period; and (4) that the school tax represented 67.05 per cent of all taxes collected by the sheriff in Larue County for that year.

The court, following these findings of fact and law, adjudged the sheriff to be entitled to the sum of $6,748.01 as compensation for the collection of school taxes for 1954. The board moved for a new trial, contending the court's finding that 75 per cent of the sheriff's time was spent on all tax work was excessive. At a hearing on the motion, the court revised its finding by fixing the time spent on tax collections at 70 per cent of the total time of the sheriff's office in performing its duties, and a judgment was entered to allow the sheriff the sum of $6,349.63 on the school tax receipts.

From this judgment the board appeals, urging reversal on the gounds that (1) the lower court erred in holding that the action of the fiscal court in fixing the maximum salary of the sheriff and his deputies was conclusive on the question of reasonable compensation for the purpose of computing the sheriff's school tax commissions; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the findings of fact or the judgment entered thereon.

It is our opinion that appellant's first contention is without merit. In arriving at what the sheriff and his deputies were entitled to receive for the collection of all taxes, the trial court found that the amounts of annual compensation fixed by the fiscal court for these officials 'must be accepted by the court as evidence (emphasis ours) of reasonable compensation'. Obviously, in adopting the figures set by the fiscal court, this particular fact was considered along with the other evidence presented, such as the level of compensation for similar work in the community and the practical consideration that compensation for these positions should be high enough to attract competent men to these offices. Furthermore, there was no counter evidence introduced that would tend to reduce these sums. Therefore, we believe the annual compensation set by the lower court for the sheriff and his deputies was reasonable for the purposes involved in this litigation.

We agree with the board's next contention that the evidence in the case at bar establishes no facts of probative value to sustain the finding that 70 per cent of the time of the sheriff's office was spent in tax collections. The entire proof consists of categorical statements of the sheriff and his...