Lee v. Board of Commissioners of Huntington County
| Decision Date | 04 June 1890 |
| Docket Number | 14,310 |
| Citation | 24 N.E. 986,124 Ind. 214 |
| Parties | Lee v. The Board of Commissioners of Huntington County |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Huntington Circuit Court.
B. M Cobb and C. W. Watkins, for appellant.
J. B Kenner and J. I. Dille, for appellee.
The appellant, while auditor of Huntington county, made it appear to the satisfaction of the board of commissioners that it was impracticable for him to make accurate semi-annual settlements with the county treasurer, and a just and equitable distribution of the different funds by the footings of the regular tax duplicate.
The county board thereupon found that there existed an indispensable public necessity, and employed the appellant as county auditor, to "register, foot and balance all receipts by instalments in a book to be provided for that purpose at the expense of the county, and in consideration of said work being done, it is ordered by the board of commissioners of Huntington county, that the county auditor shall receive the sum of ten (10) cents for each and every entry made on the register of State and county taxes, and five (5) cents for each and every entry made on said register of all gravel road taxes."
The appellant avers that, relying upon the foregoing order, he made the entries, footings, etc., in a book "that was outside of and in addition to all the books required by law, or usually kept by the auditor," and he asked to receive payment out of the county treasury of the following account:
Whether the judgment shall be affirmed or reversed depends upon the propriety of the ruling of the court in sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.
The practical question in this, and all other cases of this class, is, was the work for which the public officer asks compensation out of the public treasury, such as is embraced in the general duties of his office, and for which the law provides compensation? If it was, manifestly the commissioners had no power to add to the compensation prescribed by the statute; if it was not, then it is pertinent to inquire whether the county commissioners have power to supplement the provisions made by the Legislature, by adding new duties to a public office, and fixing compensation for the added duties by contract with the officer.
Until it can be shown...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Trueblood
...the legislature itself, or by some other officer or body to whom authority to fix the compensation has been delegated.” In Lee v. Board, 124 Ind. 214, 24 N. E. 986, a like question was presented, and in deciding it the court said: “The practical question in this, and all other cases of this......
-
The State v. Trueblood
... ... count: "On the 27th day of November, 1897, at the county ... of Lawrence and State of Indiana, Henry C. Trueblood, Matthew ... Cosner then and there constituted and ... were members of the board of county commissioners of said ... county of Lawrence, in the State of ... ...
-
Board of Commissioners of Huntington Co. v. Heaston
... ... county, to recover of ... the former the sum of $ 7,221.90, alleged to have been ... allowed him as auditor of said county by its commissioners in ... violation of the statutes. Upon a trial had there was a ... judgment rendered in effect that the appellant take nothing ... by the action, and that ... ...
-
Bd. of Com'rs of Huntington Cnty. v. Heaston
...commissioners did not act within the scope of their authority, and therefore did not bind the county. Board v. Ellis, supra; Lee v. Board, 124 Ind. 214, 24 N. E. 986. Independent of the right given by section 6549, Rev. St. 1894, to recover back the money upon the part of appellant, which s......