Painter v. Polk Cnty.

• Decision Date: 22 October 1890
• Citation: 47 N.W. 65,81 Iowa 242
• Parties: PAINTER v. POLK COUNTY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

81 Iowa 242

47 N.W. 65

PAINTER

v.POLK COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 22, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; CHARLES A. BISHOP, Judge.

Action to recover fees due to plaintiff for services rendered as sheriff of said county. Plaintiff's claim is admitted, but defendant asks to be allowed as a counter-claim certain other fees paid to plaintiff to which he was not entitled under the law. The case was submitted to the court upon an agreed statement of facts, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant appeals, assigning the rendering of the judgment as error.C. P. Holmes, for appellant.

Cummings & Wright, for appellee.

GIVENS, J.

1. The agreed statement of facts is as follows: “It is agreed and stipulated between the parties hereto that during the years 1884, 1885, 1886, and 1887 the plaintiff was the sheriff of Polk county, duly elected and qualified; that during these years he attended with prisoners before the court in this county; that for such service he presented his bills to the board of supervisors of defendant county, a copy of which said bills, so far as material, are hereto attached, and made a part hereof; that during said years the plaintiff also presented to said board of supervisors bills for the commitment and discharges of prisoners in cases where such prisoners were not actually committed and discharged from the jail, as shown by the records kept by the jailer of the persons received into and discharged from said jail, a copy of which said bill is hereto attached; that the defendant has paid plaintiff for and on account of such attendance the sum of $331, and on account of such commitments and discharges the sum of $17, said bills having been duly allowed, and warrants issued and paid, in the ordinary course of business; that said bills were presented and allowed upon the belief that the defendant county was legally liable to the plaintiff for services in attending with prisoners before the court, and was in the same manner liable for such commitments and discharges. There is now in hands of the defendant, and owing plaintiff, upon settlements of other accounts with the defendant, the sum of three hundred and forty-eight dollars, which is now retained by the defendant, awaiting the determination of the question as to whether or not defendant is entitled to recover of plaintiff the amount paid to him upon said bills for services for attending before the court with a prisoner, and for commitment and discharge of prisoners not actually committed and discharged from custody in jail.” The mistake as to the law with respect to fees for attendance evidently arose from the fact that, under the Code of 1873, sheriffs were allowed for “attendance with a person before the court or judge when required, for each day one dollar.” This was changed by chapter 115, Acts 18th Gen. Assem., the word “court” being omitted. In Painter v. Polk Co., 70 Iowa, 597, 31 N. W. Rep. 879, it was held that under this change sheriffs were not entitled to fees for attending before a court with a prisoner. The $331 fees for attendance in question were paid after the change in the law, and before the announcement of the opinion in Painter v. Polk Co., and the only question with respect thereto is whether, having been paid under a mutual mistake as to the law, the...