State Ex Rel. Lorenzo D. Miok. v. County Court Of Lewis County., (No. 7023)

• Decision Date: 26 May 1931
• Docket Number: (No. 7023)
• Citation: 110 W.Va. 533
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: State ex rel. Lorenzo D. Miok et al. v. County Court ofLewis County et al.

110 W.Va. 533

State ex rel. Lorenzo D. Miok et al.

v. County Court ofLewis County et al.

(No. 7023)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted May 13, 1931.

Decided May 26, 1931.

Counties

The obligations which a county court may lawfully incur are limited by statute to such as it is "expressly authorized by law" to incur.

Original mandamus proceeding in the Supreme Court by the State, on the relation of Lorenzo D. Mick and others, against the County Court of Lewis County and others.

Writ denied.

E. A. Brannon and Herbert M. Blair, for relators. W. R. Simmons, W. J. Smith and Da Costa Smith, for respondents.

Hatcher, Judge:

Petitioners allege that A. E. Sutton was elected assessor of Lewis County on November 6. 1928, and that he qualified and has served continuously as such since January 1, 1929; that at the commencement of his term, he appointed the petitioners as four of his deputies with the consent of the county court of Lewis County, entered of record, and that they qualified and have served as deputies ever since; that immediately prior to the commencement of their term of office, the assessor and the county court concurred in fixing the annual salary of each petitioner at $1,000 (payable in monthly installments of $200.00 during the first five months of each year of their tenure in office); and that the county court now proposes and has attempted, over the protest of the assessor, to reduce their several salaries for the year 1931 to $750.00 (payable at the rate of $150.00 a month). Petitioners pray that the county court be directed to pay them, severally, their salaries at the rate of $200.00 a month for the first five months of the year 1931.

The county court denies that the salaries were initially fixed for the full term of office of the petitioners; and alleges that the assessor submitted his estimates of the salaries of his deputies in December prior to each of the years 1929, 1930 and 1931, and that the allowances to petitioners by the respondent were made for each of said years separately.

In order for the petitioners to prevail they must, of course, establish a clear legal right to the writ which is sought. The only law relating specifically to this subject is (a) the constitutional provision: "The assessor shall, with the advice and consent of the county court have the power to appoint one or more assistants", (Const, Art. 9, sec. 2); and (b) the statutory provision: "The salary of all assistant assessors shall be fixed by the assessor and the county court, and shall not be less than three hundred nor...