People v. Frick
| Decision Date | 15 December 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 24006.,24006. |
| Citation | 367 Ill. 446,11 N.E.2d 955 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. FRICK et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action of debt by the People, for the use of Williamson County, against Gottlib J. Frick and another, wherein the named defendant filed a counterclaim. From the judgment, the plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.Appeal from Circuit Court, Williamson County; John M. Read, judge.
Charles C. Murrah, of Herrin, James Otis Gallimore, of Marion, and E. E. Denison, of Marion, for appellant.
D. L. Duty, of Marion, for appellees.
The principal questions here have to do with the right of a sheriff who is also ex officio county collector, to set off various counterclaims for money due him for feeding prisoners, deputy hire, and other expenses, against tax collection received by him as ex officio collector. As public revenues are involved, the cause comes here by direct appeal from the circuit court of Williamson county.
An action of debt was brought in the name of the People, for the use of Williamson county, against G. J. Frick and the Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company, on the collector's official bond. The suit was for the recovery of a total of $32,506.89, claimed due for taxes collected by Frick in the following amounts: County taxes, $11,666.05; town taxes, $2755.27; tax sales fees, $199; earned fees of the office of collector, $17,886.57. No state revenues were involved. Answers were filed and a special defense was interposed on the part of the bonding company reciting that its bond covered only moneys collected as taxes in Williamson county for the year 1934, and did not cover any part of the fees claimed in the sum of $17,886.57. As a further special defense, the bonding company alleged that the county collector tendered and offered to pay to the county of Williamson its orders and warrants previously issued to Frick in an amount equal to, or greater than, the amount claimed by the county. The defendant Frick also filed a counterclaim, setting up an alleged indebtedness of the county to him in the sum of $23,508.38 for labor and services as sheriff and ex officio collector, which counterclaim, together with the amount of $17,886.57 claimed due him as fees, left the county owing him an alleged sum of $8,888.06, for which he demanded judgment. Upon motion for a bill of particulars, the same was furnished by Frick, with copies of various county orders issued by the county board for various purposes and at different times, in former years, in the aggregate sum of $21,963.38. After a hearing before the trial judge without a jury, the court found tha the collector had tendered to the county treasurer various county orders amounting to $8,829.70 and offered the same as a set-off to the claim of the county and had kept the tender god, but that the county had refused to accept the tender or allow the counterclaim; that in addition to these county orders, Frick, as sheriff, had paid out the sum of $5,367.03 for deputy sheriff's salaries, fees, and expenses, connected with the office of sheriff of Williamson county, in excess of all other fees collected by him; that Frick was entitled to recover these two sums of $8,829.70 for feeding prisoners and $5,367.03 for deputy hire, etc., together with a further sum of $224.45 on account of a county order accepted by Frick in payment of taxes of a telephone company. The court further found that Frick, as county collector, was indebted in the sum of $14,620.32 for taxes collected, and that the county owed him, by way of counterclaim, the three items above mentioned, totaling $14,421.18, and thereupon entered judgment for the difference of $119.14 in favor of the county.
The material facts and figures were stipulated between the parties, and for the purposes of this opinion only certain parts thereof need be reproduced. It was admitted that part of the total sum withheld by Frick out of 1934 tax collections included $2,755.27, collected on account of levies previously made by several townships in the county. It was also stipulated that during the year 1934, Frick received $199, in cash, collected as county clerk's fees in tax sales, and that in 1934 he also collected the sum of $1,985, in cash, representing ‘back taxes' levied for the fiscal years prior to September 1, 1933, which he had likewise refused to turn over to the county treasurer. It was further stipulated that during the year 1934, Frick, as county collector, had collected the sum of $17,886.57, in cash, which represented 2 per cent. of the total amount of taxes collected, commonly called earned fees of the office of collector, which sum of $17,886.57 he had paid out to divers employees lawfully employed in the office of sheriff and ex officio collector of taxes of Williamson county. This last-mentioned stipulation made it unnecessary for Frick to prove the employment and payments challenged, removed any further contention as to the propriety of his deduction of the sum mentioned as earned fees of his office as ex officio collector, and left only the property of the deduction made by the trial court of the three respective sums of $5,367.03, $224.45, and $8,829.70, for our consideration.
The sum of $5,367.03, claimed by Frick for deputy sheriff's salaries, fees, and expenses in excess of all other fees collected by him during 1934, was improperly allowed. Section 10 of article 10 of the Constitution of 1870 provides: ‘The county board, except as provided in section 9 of this article, shall fix the compensation of all county officers, with the amount of their necessary clerk hire, stationery, fuel and other expenses, and in all cases where fees are provided for, said compensation shall be paid only out of, and shall in no instance exceed, the fees actually collected.’ To enforce this constitutional mandate the county board is required to fix the whole compensation of county officers, including clerk hire, stationery, fuel, and other expenses before the officer enters upon the duties of his office. This can be done either by fixing the compensation of the officer, including necessary clerk hire, stationery, fuel, and other expenses, in one lump sum, or by fixing one sum for compensation of the officer and a separate sum for clerk hire and expenses. If the county board fixes the compensation of the county officer including necessary clerk hire, stationery, fuel, and other expenses, in one lump sum, neither the compensation, nor the expenses of the office, can be increased during the officer's term of office. In such circumstances, the officer is entitled to retain the amount fixed, if that much is paid into his office in fees. On the other hand, if one sum is fixed by the board for compensation and another sum for necessary clerk hire and expenses, the officer is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. McWard v. Wabash R. Co.
...such sum out of fees collected; People ex rel. Heuer v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co., 377 Ill. 470, 36 N.E.2d 925;People v. Frick, 367 Ill. 446, 11 N.E.2d 955; or the salary may be fixed in one item and the expenses of his office as other items, in which latter case, the county offic......
-
Curran v. Harris Trust & Sav. Bank
...construed so that controversies may be speedily and finally determined according to the substantive rights of the parties. People v. Frick, 367 Ill. 446, 11 N.E.2d 955; People ex rel. Wilmette State Bank v. Village of Wilmette, 294 Ill.App. 362, 13 N.E.2d 990; Weigend v. Hulsh, 315 Ill.App.......
-
People ex rel. Heuer v. Chicago, B.&Q.R. Co.
...the whole amount out of fees collected (Kilgore v. People, 76 Ill. 548;Coles County v. Messer, 195 Ill. 540, 63 N.E. 391,People v. Frick, 367 Ill. 446, 11 N.E.2d 955), or it may be fixed as compensation for the performance of the county officer's official duties in one item, and ‘clerk hire......
-
Hutchens v. Wade
... ... (Lavin v. Comrs. of Cook County (1910), 245 Ill. 496, 92 N.E. 291.) See also (People v. Sears [13 Ill.App.3d 790] (1971), 49 Ill.2d 14, 273 N.E.2d 380.) The jurisdiction of the trial court in such a matter may be initiated by the ... 391, it was said that expenses of the sheriff which are not fixed in advance by the county board cannot be recovered. In People v. Frick, 367 Ill. 446 at p. 450, 11 N.E.2d 955 at p. 957, it is said: ... 'County officers have no power to create a liability against the county for office ... ...