Privett v. Board of Com'rs of Grant County
| Decision Date | 22 December 1914 |
| Docket Number | 3895. |
| Citation | 145 P. 323,44 Okla. 523,1914 OK 660 |
| Parties | PRIVETT, REGISTER OF DEEDS, ET AL. v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF GRANT COUNTY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The action of a board of county commissioners, settling reported accounts of the county register of deeds, is not a bar to an action against such register and his bondsmen for fees collected and misappropriated by him.
A register of deeds, who was elected in 1907 and held office from November 17, 1907, to January 9, 1911, was entitled to compensation under Laws 1897, c. 15,§ 17 (section 3382, Comp Laws 1909) throughout his term, notwithstanding the act of March 19, 1910 (Laws 1910, c. 69, § 3), purporting to put a different measure of compensation into effect on and after June 17, 1910, as section 10, art. 23 (Williams' § 359) of our Constitution inhibits any change in the salary or emoluments of a public officer during his term.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. Error from District Court, Grant County; W. M. Boles, Judge.
Action by the Board of County Commissioners of Grant County against E. P. Privett, Register of Deeds, and his bondsmen, for fees collected and unpaid to county. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed and rendered.
Sam P Ridings, of Medford, for plaintiffs in error.
Emery H. Breeden, of Medford, for defendant in error.
Plaintiffs in error will be designated as defendants and defendant in error as plaintiff, in accord with their respective titles in the trial court.
The plaintiff county, by its board of commissioners, brought this action against E. P. Privett, its register of deeds, from November 17, 1907, to January 9, 1911, as principal, and his codefendants, as his sureties, upon his official bond for $552.72 and recovered thereon $474.12 upon items of its demand as shown by the following quotation from the journal entry of judgment:
That there is due on report 12"31"07 .................................. $ 64 15 That there is due from chattel mortgages not reported ................... 21 00 That there is due on error in addition on reception records and reports ............................................................... 42 47 That there is due fees for November, 1910, not paid into the county treasurer ............................................................ 346 50 ------- $474 12
The action of the plaintiff's board of county commissioners in approving the accounts of said register under section 1838, Stat. 1890 (section 1645, Rev. Laws 1910), from which no appeal was taken, is not a bar to this action. Anderson v. Board of Commissioners, 143 P. 1145; Huntington et al. v. Board of Commissioners, 144 P. 385; Ziegler v. Board of Commissioners, 144 P. 381; Orendorff v. Board of Commissioners, 144 P. 383; Hamilton et al. v. Board of Commissioners, 144 P. 386; Russell v. Board of Commissioners, 144 P. 580; Walker v. Board of Commissioners, 144 P. 793.
Under Laws 1897, p. 168 (section 3382, Comp. Laws 1909), enforced throughout the register's term, he was entitled to a salary of $1,600 per annum, plus 50 per cent. of the specified fees collected by him in excess of that amount, until the census of 1910 operated to raise his compensation to a salary of $2,000 per annum, plus 50 per cent. of such fees so collected in excess of that amount, notwithstanding an act of March 19, 1910, purporting to take effect on June 17, 1910, and to supersede the former law in this regard.
Section 10, art. 23 (Williams' § 359), of our Constitution inhibits...
To continue reading
Request your trial