Mudgett v. Liebes

• Decision Date: 14 May 1896
• Parties: MUDGETT, COUNTY TREASURER, v. LIEBES, CITY COMPTROLLER.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

45 P. 19

14 Wash. 482

MUDGETT, COUNTY TREASURER, v. LIEBES, CITY COMPTROLLER.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 14, 1896

Appeal from superior court, Spokane county; James Z. Moore, Judge.

Application by George Mudgett, treasurer of Spokane county, for mandamus against George A. Liebes, city comptroller of the city of Spokane, to compel the payment to complainant of his salary as ex officio collector of city taxes of the city of Spokane. From a judgment dismissing the application, the applicant appeals. Reversed.

Richardson & Williams, for appellant.

W. H Plummer, for respondent.

GORDON J.

The appellant was elected treasurer of Spokane county in November, 1894, and entered upon the discharge of his duties in January thereafter. By virtue of his election as such county treasurer, he became ex officio tax collector of the city of Spokane, with a salary of $500 for his services as tax collector, in addition to the salary allowed him as such county treasurer. This action is brought by him against the respondent, as city comptroller of said city of Spokane, to compel the payment of the appellant's salary as such tax collector, for the months of April and May, 1895. In answer to the alternative writ granted by the court below, the respondent claimed that, by the act of March 21 1895 (Laws 1895, p. 407), appellant's right to any salary as such city tax collector was cut off. Upon the trial which followed, the court gave judgment for the respondent and dismissed the action. From this judgment appellant brings the cause here upon appeal.

His contention is that the act of March 21, 1895, supra, is unconstitutional, in so far as it operates to take away or diminish his salary as ex officio tax collector, after his election and during his term of officio. Section 8, art. 11 of the state constitution provides that "the salary of any county, city, town or municipal officer shall not be increased or diminished after his election or during his term of office." Section 4 of the act of March 9, 1893, in force at the time of appellant's election, provides that the county treasurer of each county in which there is a city of the first class is ex officio collector of city taxes of such city, and requires such officer to execute a bond in favor of the city in an amount equal to that of the bond required of him as county treasurer; and section 10 of said act is as follows: "Each city of the first class shall pay to the county treasurer for duties performed by him in collection of city taxes a salary of $500 per year, payable monthly from the treasury of said city, as other salaries are paid, which salary shall be in addition to the salary otherwise provided by law. Each city shall also pay the county one thousand dollars per annum for clerk hire." These sections are amended by the act of March 21, 1895. The amendment of section 4 consists simply in providing that the bond to the city shall be in a penal sum, "to be fixed by the city council," instead of being "in an amount equal to the bond required of him as county treasurer," as fixed by the old act; and section 10, above set out, was amended by excluding therefrom the provision for compensation, and, as amended, reads as follows: "Each city shall pay the county one thousand dollars per annum for clerk hire." Counsel for the respondent insists that the effect of the amendatory enactment was to make the appellant simply county treasurer alone, instead of county treasurer and ex officio city tax collector, as formerly, and that, "having done this much, the legislature went still further, and concluded to impose upon the county treasurer an additional duty, to wit, that of collecting the taxes of the city of Spokane, which it did in the same act."

It is too well settled to require any citation of authority that the legislature may abolish an office entirely at any time also, that the holder of an office has no proprietary rights therein, and is subject to the will of the legislature, save only as the legislative power may be restricted by the constitution; also, that the legislature has power to impose additional...