State v. Daues

• Decision Date: 06 August 1926
• Docket Number: No. 26929.,26929.
• Citation: 287 S.W. 430
• Parties: STATE ex rel. DIETRICH v. DAUES et al., Judges.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

287 S.W. 430

STATE ex rel. DIETRICH v. DAUES et al., Judges.

No. 26929.

Supreme Court of Missouri, In Banc.

August 6, 1926.

Appeal will not lie from order of county court reducing salary of county treasurer, pursuant to Rev. St. 1919, § 9536, since such order is not within sections 2436 and 2584 and is not "account against a county," within section 2589.

Certiorari by the State on the relation of Frank Dietrich to quash the opinion and judgment of Charles H. Danes and others, Judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, published in 277 S. W. 815. Opinion and judgment quashed.

Albert Miller, of St. Louis, and R. E. Kleinschmidt, of Hillsboro, for relator.

Chas. J. White, of Festus, for respondents.

RAGLAND, J.

Certiorari. Relator seeks to quash the opinion and judgment of the St. Louis Court of Appeals in the consolidated case of Frank Dietrich v. N. W. Brickey, Presiding Judge, et al. and In re Dietrich, County Treasurer, reported in 277 S. W. 815, on the ground that certain rulings therein conflict with the decisions of this court. The rulings in question, and the facts and issues on which they are based, appear from the following portions of the opinion:

"By agreement, the above cases have been consolidated. The first is an appeal from the county court of Jefferson county to the circuit court of said county, from an order reducing the salary of the treasurer of Jefferson county, from $1,500 per year to $1,000 per year. The other is an injunction suit filed in the circuit court of said Jefferson county, Mo., by said treasurer, Frank Dietrich, seeking to enjoin and restrain and asking that the order of the county court, reducing his salary as treasurer of Jefferson county, Mo., be set aside and for naught held.

"Both cases were submitted to the trial court upon an agreed statement of facts. The trial court decided the injunction suit first, dismissing same because there was no equity in that case, for the reason plaintiff had a legal remedy at law, that of appeal, which he had already taken; in the appeal case from the county court, the circuit court affirmed the judgment and order of the county court on the grounds that the county court, legally, had the right to reduce the salary of the county treasurer.

"From the above judgment, appellant, in due time, perfected his appeal to this court. * * *

"In the equity suit to restrain the county judges from enforcing the order of the county court reducing the treasurer's salary, the petition recites that plaintiff is the duly elected and qualified treasurer of Jefferson county, Mo., elected in 1920 for a term expiring December 31, 1924; that defendants are the presiding and district judges, respectively, of Jefferson county, Mo.; that on November 10, 1916, the county court of Jefferson county, by order of record, aften hearing evidence as to what would be a just and reasonable compensation for the services of treasurer of the county, fixed compensation at $1,500 per annum; that said compensation has been paid said officer since said date until December 18, 1923; that on the 5th day of December, 1923, defendants issued a citation served on plaintiff requiring him to appear before the county court on said date last mentioned, and to show cause why his salary as treasurer should not be reduced; that on the 18th day of December, 1923, plaintiff appeared before said court in answer to said citation and filed his affidavit, alleging that defendants, or at least a majority of them, were interested in the subject-matter of the proceedings and were biased and prejudiced against plaintiff; said affidavit prayed that said cause be certified to the circuit court, in accordance with the provisions of section 2575, Revised Statutes Missouri 1919; that two of the defendants arbitrarily and illegally, by order of record of said county court, overruled said affidavit and motion and proceeded to hear testimony concerning the compensation of plaintiff as treasurer; that plaintiff appeared at the hearing and produced four reputable, disinterested, and competent witnesses, each of them testified as to his familiarity with the duties, responsibilities, and services of plaintiff as treasurer, the amount of bond required and given by him and that $1,500 per annum was a just and reasonable compensation for said services, and that any sum less than that amount would not be a just and reasonable compensation; that, at the hearing, there was absolutely no evidence of any sort showing or tending to show that the sum of $1,000, or any other amount less than $1,500, would be a just and reasonable compensation; that said two judges, at the conclusion of the testimony, on the 18th day of December, 1923, caused the following order to be entered of record on the records of the county court of Jefferson county, Mo:

"`The court, after hearing the evidence and being fully advised in the premises, finds that the compensation now allowed to the county treasurer of Jefferson county is more than just and reasonable, and that $1,000 per annum is a just and reasonable allowance to said county treasurer for his services.

"'It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that said county treasurer be allowed as compensation for said services at the rate of $1,000 per annum from this date.'

"That plaintiff has been treasurer of the county since January 1, 1917, faithfully discharging his duties, and that $1,500 per annum is a just and reasonable compensation for his services as such officer, and that $1,000 per annum or any amount less than $1,500 is not a just and reasonable compensation; that said order reducing plaintiff's salary was contrary to the facts and to all of the evidence produced at the hearing; that the finding was the result of spite, hatred, and of the said two judges; that the action of said court was not the exercise of lawful discretion pertaining to...