Shelton v. State ex rel. Caldwell, Co.
| Citation | 162 P. 224,1917 OK 20,62 Okla. 105 |
| Decision Date | 02 January 1917 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 6964 |
| Parties | SHELTON et al. v. STATE ex rel. CALDWELL, Co. Atty., et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
¶0 1. Officers--Payment of Illegal Claim--Right to Recover. A public officer is entitled only to that compensation which is provided by law; and if he draws money from the public treasury, either for salary, fees, expenses, or extra compensation, he must be able to point to some constitutional or statutory authority, express or implied, which authorizes the same, and if he cannot do so, said sums of money may be recovered by proper action.
2. Schools and School Districts--County Superintendent--Salary. The maximum salary of a county superintendent of public instruction, at the advent of statehood, was $ 1,200 per year.
3. Same--Expenses. Such officer is not entitled to receive pay from the county for expenses incurred by him in attending teachers'' meeting.
4. Same--Extra Compensation. Such officer is not entitled to compensation for services performed as a member of the board of county examiners.
5. Same--Compensation for Visits. Such officer is entitled to compensation for visiting each school, but not for visiting each room in the school.
6. Officers--Official Bonds--Liability of Sureties. A surety is not liable on the bond of a public officer for public money received by such officer outside the terms of the bond.
7. Limitation of Actions--Public Money--Recovery from Public Officer. An action to recover public money from a public officer received by him without warrant or authority of law is barred in three years.
Kornegay & Probasco, for plaintiffs in error.
Willard H. Voyles, for defendants in error.
¶1 The parties hereto will be designated as they appeared in the court below. On March 12, 1912, the state of Oklahoma, on the relation of C. Caldwell, as county attorney of Craig county, Okla., and the board of county commissioners of Craig county, Okla., filed their petition in the court below for the use and the benefit of said county of Craig, to recover from H. W. C. Shelton and the Southern Surety Company the total sum of $ 637.65. The petition states that the defendant Shelton was the duly qualified and acting county superintendent of public instruction of Craig county for and during the period from the 16th day of November, 1907, to the 9th day of January, 1911; that as such public officer, he executed a bond to the state of Oklahoma and the county of Craig in the sum of $ 1,000, with the Southern Surety Company as surety thereon, and that the condition of the bond was that if the said Shelton should faithfully perform the duties of his office, then the bond should be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect; that during the incumbency of his office, the said Shelton, at various times, presented illegal claims for various items to the board of county commissioners for allowance, and that the same were illegally allowed by said board, and afterwards illegally paid him by the treasurer of Craig county. The petition is divided into two paragraphs. In the first paragraph several causes of action are stated, but no objection was raised to this, and therefore the commingling of the several causes of action in a single paragraph will not be noticed. The first cause of action is to recover $ 7.77 as salary alleged to be in excess of $ 100 per month paid for the period from April 1, 1910, to July 1, 1910; the second is to recover the sum of $ 16.66 as excess salary for the month of July, 1910, paid in August, 1910; the third is to recover the sum of $ 16.67 as excess salary for the month of August, 1910, paid in September, 1910; the fourth is to recover the sum of $ 16.67 as excess salary for the month of September, 1910, paid in October, 1910; the fifth is to recover the sum of $ 16.66 as excess salary for the month of October, 1910, paid in November, 1910; the sixth is to recover the sum of $ 16.67 as excess salary for the month of November, 1910, paid in December, 1910; the seventh in to recover the sum of $ 16.67 as excess salary for the month of December, 1910, paid in January, 1911; the eighth is to recover the sum of $ 16.65 as excess salary for the period of time between January 1, and January 11, 1911, paid in January, 1911; the ninth is to recover the sum of $ 110.28, paid in various amounts and at various times to the defendant Shelton, as expenses incurred in attending teachers'' meetings; the tenth is to recover the sum of $ 180 paid to the said Shelton at various times and in various amounts as fees for services performed as a member of the board of examiners of said county; the eleventh is to recover the sum of $ 38 paid to the defendant Shelton at various times and in various amounts for excess fees for visiting the public schools in said county. The second paragraph states a single cause of action, to wit, to recover the sum of $ 184.95, paid to defendant Shelton for clerk hire during his term of office. All of said payments were made to said Shelton out of the public funds of said Craig county on claims presented by him to the board of county commissioners, and by said board allowed, and it is alleged that the payment of said claims was not authorized by law, and therefore the defendants were liable for the repayment of same with interest. Defendants demurred to said petition, which was overruled by the lower court, and exceptions reserved. Afterwards each of the defendants filed separate answers, in which, among other things, there is alleged a general denial; that the payments were proper, and if not so, the action was barred by the statute of limitation, and that the facts alleged stated no grounds of recovery against the Southern Surety Company, because they were outside the terms of the bond. It will be unnecessary to state further the grounds of the demurrer or the defenses set up in the answers, for the reason that they are sufficient to cover the following points: First. Whether the sums of money paid to and received by the said Shelton were without authority or warrant of law. Second. If so, were they within the obligations of the bond given? Third. If so, were they, or any part thereof, barred by limitation? The case was tried in the court below upon an agreed statement of facts, a jury having been waived. By the agreed statement of facts it is admitted that the defendant Shelton was elected county superintendent of Craig county, Okla., in November, 1907, and qualified by taking the prescribed oath, and executing a bond unto the state of Oklahoma and the county of Craig, in the sum of $ 1,000, with the Southern Surety Company as surety, therein conditioned that if the said Shelton should faithfully perform the duties of his office, then the obligations of the bond should be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect; that the board of county commissioners of Craig county, before the census of said county was known, for the purpose of fixing the basis of payment to public officers of said county, estimated the population of said county to be 18,000; that it was agreed by the board of county commissioners and the defendant Shelton that if the estimated population was too large, and thereby the defendant Shelton should receive too much salary, he should repay the excess; that by the assessor''s census of said county, filed in 1908, the population of said county was shown to be between 14,000 and 15,000, and that the federal census ascertained in 1910, gave the population of said county between 17,000 and 18,000. The said statement of facts further recites: That the said Shelton, during the period from April 1, 1910, to January 9, 1911, inclusive, filed claims for salary as county superintendent, with the county clerk of said county, and that said claims were allowed by the board of county commissioners of said county, and warrants issued therefor, which were paid to said Shelton out of the public funds of said county, as follows:
¶2 That said Shelton, as such superintendent, filed claims for expenses of attending teachers'' meetings during the period from April 8, 1908, to April 2, 1910, inclusive, with the board of county commissioners, which were allowed by said board and paid to said Shelton out of said public funds as follows:
¶3 That the said Shelton, as said county superintendent, filed claims for compensation as a member of the board of county examiners of said county, for services during the period from April, 1908, to February 1, 1911, inclusive, and that the same were allowed by said board and paid him out of said public funds as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial