Meglemery v. Weissinger

• Decision Date: 20 October 1910
• Citation: 140 Ky. 353,131 S.W. 40
• Parties: MEGLEMERY v. WEISSINGER et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

131 S.W. 40

140 Ky. 353

MEGLEMERY v. WEISSINGER et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 20, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Branch, 1st Division.

Action by Ed Meglemery against Muir Weissinger and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

W. W Davies and R. L. Page, for appellant.

A Scott Bullitt, County Atty., John L. Sullivan, Asst. County Atty., and Kohn, Baird, Sloss & Kohn, for appellees.

CARROLL J.

On December 31, 1909, the appellant, Meglemery, was a magistrate and member of the Jefferson county fiscal court, and on that day he was appointed by the court as bridge commissioner under the authority conferred upon the fiscal court by sections 4329 and 4330 of the Kentucky Statutes (Russell's St.§§ 5475, 5476), to superintend the construction of a bridge between Hardin and Jefferson county. Meglemery's term as magistrate and member of the fiscal court expired on January 2, 1910. On April 5, 1910, the fiscal court as then constituted removed him, and appointed Charles F. Taylor in his place. After this action was taken Meglemery brought this suit against the members of the fiscal court and Taylor, and for relief asked that the action of the court in removing him and appointing Taylor in his place be declared null and void, and that Taylor and the fiscal court be enjoined from interfering with him in the performance of his duties as bridge commissioner. To this petition a general demurrer was sustained, and, declining to plead further, he prosecutes this appeal.

As Meglemery was on December 31, 1909, a member of the body that appointed him to fill this place, the appointment was void for reasons of public policy that are both sound and sufficient. And so we have held that in cases like this the fiscal court cannot appoint one of its members to a place that carries with it duties and compensation. Millikin v Gillum & Son, 135 Ky. 280, 122 S.W. 151. Nor does the fact that his term expired within a few days after his appointment, or the fact that his duties would be prescribed and his compensation allowed by a body of which he was not a member, or the fact that he was not present with the court when his appointment was made, have the effect of changing this salutary rule. The fact that the power to fix and regulate the duties and compensation of the appointee is lodged in the body of which he is a member is one, but not the only, reason why it is against public policy to permit such a body charged with the performance of public duties to appoint one of its members to an office or place of trust and responsibility. It is of the highest importance that municipal and other bodies of public servants should be free from every kind of personal influence...