The Board of Commissioners of Montgomery County v. Glass

• Decision Date: 01 June 1896
• Docket Number: 298
• Citation: 4 Kan.App. 286,45 P. 935
• Parties: THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY v. JOHN W. GLASS
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

45 P. 935

4 Kan.App. 286

THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY v. JOHN W. GLASS

No. 298

Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, Eastern Division

June 1, 1896

Opinion Filed July 13, 1896.

MEMORANDUM.-- Error from Montgomery district court; J. D McCUE, judge. Appeal by John W. Glass from an order of the Board of County Commissioners of Montgomery county rejecting a bill for salary as county clerk. Judgment for appellant. Appellee brings the case to this court. Affirmed.

The statement of the case, as made by JOHNSON, P. J., is as follows:

This was an appeal in the court below. The defendant in error John W. Glass, appealed to the district court of Montgomery county, Kansas, from an order of the board of county commissioners of said county rejecting a bill presented for a balance claimed to be due on his salary as county clerk. The claim was disallowed, and the appeal perfected. The defendant in error filed a petition on said appeal, which contained the following statements:

That the appellant, John W. Glass, was elected county clerk of Montgomery county at the general election held November 5 1893; that he qualified and entered upon the performance of his duties as such clerk on January 8, 1894, and has ever since performed such duties; that chapter 141, section 2, of the Session Laws of Kansas of 1889, fixed his salary as county clerk at $ 2,400 per annum, payable quarterly; that on the 8th day of April, 1894, there was due him, for salary for the first quarter, $ 600; that on March 3, 1891, the legislature of the state of Kansas passed and enacted an act entitled "An act regulating the fees and salaries of county treasurer, county clerk, county attorney, probate judge, register of deeds, clerk of the district court, surveyor, superintendent of public instructions, coroner and sheriff of Montgomery county, Kansas"; that said law is unconstitutional and void; that on the 9th day of April, 1894, he presented to the county commissioners of Montgomery county, Kansas, a bill for $ 450 for his salary as county clerk for the first quarter, which bill said commissioners allowed and paid him; that at the time the bill was presented, allowed and paid as aforesaid there was an additional amount of $ 150 due him on his salary and fees for said first quarter, under the constitutional and valid laws of the state of Kansas; that on April 13, 1894, he presented a bill to said commissioners for said additional sum of $ 150, and it was rejected, whereupon he appealed from the decision disallowing said bill to the district court; that there is due, owing and unpaid to him from said commissioners the sum of $ 150, and interest thereon from April 13, 1894, at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, for which amount judgment was asked.

At the October term, 1894, the appellee, the board of county commissioners of said Montgomery county, Kansas, filed a general demurrer to said petition. The court heard and overruled the demurrer, and the appellee elected to stand on its demurrer. The said court rendered judgment against it therein, and in favor of the appellant, for $ 150, and interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from April 13, 1894. To all of which the plaintiff in error excepted, and now brings the case here on error, and asks a reversal of the ruling and judgment of the court below.

Judgment affirmed.

William Dunkin, for plaintiff in error.

J. D. McCue, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON P. J. All the Judges concurring.

OPINION

JOHNSON, P. J.:

The sole question in this case is as to the constitutionality of chapter 124 of the Laws of 1891. It is admitted by the briefs of both parties that, if this law is constitutional, the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff below, but if the law is unconstitutional the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

The title of the act is, "An act regulating the fees and salaries of county treasurer, county clerk, county attorney, probate judge, register of deeds, clerk of the district court, surveyor, superintendent of public instruction, coroner and sheriff of Montgomery county, Kansas." This is a special act to regulate the fees and salaries of the county officers of Montgomery county, but its validity is not challenged on account of its being a special law where a general law could be made applicable. It is conceded that the supreme court of this state has irrevocably established the doctrine that the legislature must necessarily determine whether its purpose can or cannot be expeditiously accomplished by a general law; and it is not now an open question as to whether the framers of the constitution intended to prohibit local laws where general laws could be made applicable.

The constitutionality of this act is challenged for the reason that it fails to fix a definite time when all of its provisions shall take effect and be in force, and therefore is in conflict with that clause of section 19 of article 2 of the constitution of the state which reads: "The legislature shall prescribe the...