The City of Decatur v. Vermillion

• Decision Date: 31 January 1875
• Citation: 1875 WL 8313,77 Ill. 315
• Parties: THE CITY OF DECATURv.WILLIAM VERMILLION.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

77 Ill. 315

1875 WL 8313 (Ill.)

THE CITY OF DECATUR

v.WILLIAM VERMILLION.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1875.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. C. B. SMITH, Judge, presiding.

Mr. I. A. BUCKINGHAM, for the appellant.

Messrs. PARK & LEE, for the appellee.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

Appellee brought an action of assumpsit against the city, to recover for services claimed to have been rendered as a special policeman. It appears that the city having adopted an ordinance prohibiting cattle and swine from running at large in the streets, and providing for the appointment of a pound-master for its enforcement, appellee was so appointed; and inasmuch as it was apprehended that he might meet with opposition and difficulty in enforcing an observance of the ordinance, it was thought advisable to clothe him with the powers of a policeman of the city. He was, therefore, commissioned as a special policeman at the time he was appointed pound-master. There is evidence strongly tending to prove that he was informed, at the time of his appointment, that he would be paid nothing for services as policeman.

He, however, notwithstanding such notice and information, claims, and recovered in the court below, compensation for such services in addition to what was paid him for acting as pound-master. It is urged, that as it was understood that he was not to receive double pay, he is precluded from a recovery.

We think there can be no question that appellee is barred from a recovery on this ground. The power to act as a policeman was only auxiliary to the office of pound-master, and was only conferred to enable him to fully perform the duties of his office of pound-master. Being only an incident to, or rather, a part of his duty as pound-master, and notified he would not be paid for services growing out of the discharge of the duties of his office as policeman, but only as pound-master, he has no right to recover for services he may have rendered as policeman. He must be held to his agreement. Had the services been rendered for an individual, under such an arrangement, no one could suppose that a recovery could be had; and corporations, private or municipal, have the same right to have contracts with them enforced, as do individuals. Nor is it any more necessary that their agreements with others should be reduced to writing, than it is between individuals. The same rule applies to the one as to the other.

Dillon, in his work on Corporations, at page 206, sec. 172, says: “It is a well settled rule, that a person accepting a public office with a fixed salary, is bound to perform the duties of the office for the salary. He can not legally claim additional compensation for the discharge of...