Stanley v. Fiscal Court of Hopkins County

• Decision Date: 21 September 1920
• Citation: 224 S.W. 1081,189 Ky. 390
• Parties: STANLEY v. FISCAL COURT OF HOPKINS COUNTY.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

224 S.W. 1081

189 Ky. 390

STANLEY v. FISCAL COURT OF HOPKINS COUNTY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

September 21, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hopkins County.

The Fiscal Court of Hopkins County removed J. B. Stanley from the office of County Treasurer, and from a judgment of the circuit court, dismissing an appeal, he appeals. Affirmed.

H. F S. Bailey, of Madisonville, for appellant.

L. R Fox, of Madisonville, for appellee.

CLAY C.

At the April, 1917, term of the Hopkins county fiscal court, J. B Stanley was appointed treasurer of Hopkins county for a term of four years. Prior to his appointment the compensation of the county treasurer was fixed at 1 per cent. of all amounts paid out by him, exclusive of the funds received from the state for state road purposes, thus making his compensation about $700 per annum. At a meeting of the Hopkins county fiscal court, held in the month of November, 1919, Stanley after hearing and notice, was removed from office. At that time he had about a year and one-half to serve. From that order Stanley appealed to the circuit court, which dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The fiscal court of a county has the power to appoint a county treasurer and to remove him from office at any time for cause. Section 929, Kentucky Statutes. The statute does not provide for an appeal from the order of removal, but it is insisted that an appeal is authorized by section 978, Kentucky Statutes, providing that--

"Appeals may be taken to the circuit court from all orders and judgments of the fiscal court, or quarterly courts in civil cases, where the value in controversy, exclusive of interests and costs, is over twenty-five dollars."

The argument is that, if the appellant be deprived of his office he will lose compensation amounting to about $700, and therefore the value in controversy is far in excess of $25. It must be remembered that this is not a contest between rival claimants for office, nor does the case involve the right to compensation already earned. The thing directly involved is the right to hold office. The court does not pass upon the question of value. The right to future compensation is not directly, but only indirectly, involved. Independently of the order of removal, the incumbent might never be entitled to any compensation. It seems to us, therefore, that future compensation, which may never be...