Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Brooks

• Decision Date: 28 November 1922
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 57.
• Citation: 19 Ala.App. 107,96 So. 81
• Parties: SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. BROOKS.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

96 So. 81

19 Ala.App. 107

SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO. v. BROOKS.

6 Div. 57.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

November 28, 1922

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Dan A. Greene, Judge.

Action by Lois T. Brooks, as administratrix, against the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company. From a judgment denying a motion to retax costs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Tillman Bradley & Baldwin, of Birmingham, for appellant.

W. K Terry, of Birmingham, for appellee.

BRICKEN P.J.

On the 2d day of May, 1919, a judgment was recovered in the circuit court of Jefferson county, Ala., by Mrs. Lois T. Brooks administratrix, against the Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company, which judgment carried with it a recovery of the court costs in said case. When the clerk of the circuit court of Jefferson county made up the bill of costs, he assessed as an item of costs in said cause, the sum of $70.50 as commissions for collecting the amount due on said judgment. This item of costs purports to have been assessed by the clerk under an act approved September 30, 1919, which was amendatory of section 3713 of the Code of Alabama of 1907. Under said act it is provided that clerks of the circuit courts are entitled to receive as a fee for collecting money on judgments, wherein said judgment has not been paid within 30 days after its rendition, one-half the per cent. allowed sheriffs for the same services for collecting money on executions.

The Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company, appellant here, presented a motion before the presiding judge of the circuit court of Jefferson county on the 14th day of January, 1922, seeking to have the court retax the bill of costs in said cause, and eliminate therefrom said item of $70.50, commissions charged by the clerk for the collection of the amount due on said judgment. The trial court overruled appellant's motion for the retaxation of the bill of costs, and from the judgment of the trial court in overruling said motion the appellant prosecutes its appeal to this court.

The appellant admits that, if the act approved September 30, 1919, and amendatory of section 3713 of the Code of 1907 (General Acts of Alabama 1919, pp. 884, 885), is a valid act of the Legislature of Alabama, then said item in said bill of costs was a proper charge. But it is contended by appellant that said act is unconstitutional and void, and that therefore said item of costs was improperly charged against the plaintiff in the court below.

It is contended by the appellant that the act approved September 30, 1919, is void, because said act is in conflict with sections 68, 96, 104, and 281 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901. In order that the contention of the appellant may be properly considered and understood, we set out so much of the provisions of each section of the Constitution as is now insisted upon by the appellant. These provisions are as follows:

"Sec. 68. The Legislature shall have no power to grant or to authorize or require any county or municipal authority to grant, nor shall any county or municipal authority have any power to grant any extra compensation, fee or allowance to any public officer, servant or employee, agent or contractor, after service shall have been rendered or contract made, nor to increase or decrease the fees and compensation of such officers during their terms of office; nor shall any officer of the state bind the state to the payment of any sum of money but by authority of law. ***"

"Sec. 96. The Legislature shall not enact any law not applicable to all the counties in the state, regulating costs and charges of courts, or fees, commissions or allowances of public officers."

"Sec. 104. The Legislature shall not pass a special, private or local law in any of the following cases: *** (24) Creating, increasing or decreasing fees, percentages, or allowances of public officers. ***"

"Sec. 281. The salary, fees or compensation of any officer holding any civil office of profit under this state or any county or municipality thereof, shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which he shall have been elected or appointed."

It will be seen that sections 68 and 281 of the Constitution both provide an inhibition against an increase or diminution in the fees and compensation of public officers during the term for which such officers shall have been elected or appointed. Any law which would violate the provisions of section 68 of the Constitution with respect to the increase or diminution of the fees and compensation of public officers would, of necessity, also violate the provisions of section 281 of the Constitution.

It is also to be observed that section 96 of the Constitution prohibits the Legislature from enacting any law whatsoever, whether special, private, or local, regulating the costs and charges of courts, or fees, commissions, or allowances of public officers that shall not be applicable to all the counties in the state, while section 104 of the Constitution directly prohibits the Legislature from creating, increasing, or decreasing fees, percentages, or...