Troup v. Morgan County

• Citation: 19 So. 503,109 Ala. 162
• Parties: TROUP v. MORGAN COUNTY.
• Decision Date: 05 February 1896
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

19 So. 503

109 Ala. 162

TROUP v. MORGAN COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 5, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Morgan county; H. C. Speake, Judge.

Action by L. P. Troup, against Morgan county, to recover of the defendant for ex officio services rendered by him as clerk and register of the city court of Decatur. From a judgment sustaining demurrers to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The complaint filed in the action was in words and figures as follows: "The plaintiff claims of the defendant the sum of three hundred and fifty-six and 20/100 dollars due by defendant to plaintiff for ex officio services rendered by the plaintiff as clerk and register of the city court of Decatur for the year ending November 1, 1893, which sum with interest thereon is still unpaid, and plaintiff avers that said claim for said ex officio services was duly and properly itemized and sworn to by him and presented to the court of county commissioners of Morgan county, Alabama, within twelve months after the same accrued or became payable, and was by said court of county commissioners disallowed in whole, and plaintiff alleges that at the time of the rendition of the services herein sued for he was clerk and register of the city court of Decatur. (2) The plaintiff claims of the defendant two hundred and ninety-one and 30/100 dollars due him by said defendant for ex officio services rendered by plaintiff as clerk and register of the city court of Decatur at different times and dates, from November 1, 1893, to December 1, 1894, which sum of money with interest is still unpaid. And plaintiff avers that said claim was duly itemized and sworn to by him and presented by him to the court of county commissioners of Morgan county, Alabama, within twelve months after the same accrued or became payable, and the same was by said court of county commissioners disallowed in whole, and plaintiff further avers that at the time of the rendition of the services herein sued for he was the clerk and register of the city court of Decatur."

To this complaint the defendant demurred, among others, upon the following grounds: "(3) The averments of the complaint show that the plaintiff did not sustain towards the defendant any such relation as would entitle him to a claim against it for ex officio services. (4) The complaint does not show that plaintiff held any such office, created by law, as would entitle him to a demand against this defendant for ex officio services. (5) There is no authority shown in said complaint for the rendition of ex officio services by the plaintiff for the defendant in such sort as to make this defendant liable therefor. (6) The plaintiff was not required as clerk and register of the city court of Decatur to perform any ex officio services for the defendant. (7) The plaintiff as clerk and register of the city court of Decatur was not required by the law creating his office to perform ex officio services for the defendant. (8) The act of the general assembly of Alabama creating the office of clerk and register of the city court of Decatur did not provide any compensation for a person holding such office for ex officio services. (9) The act of the legislature creating the city court of Decatur, and fixing the compensation of the clerk and register of said court, provided only for the payment to him of fees for designated services rendered by him, and does not include any compensation for ex officio services." "(11) The plaintiff, as clerk and register of the city court of Decatur, is not by law, either general or special entitled to compensation for ex officio services. (12) The law creating the office of clerk and register of the city court of Decatur, and fixing his compensation as such clerk and register, provides that he shall receive the same fees as are by law allowed in like cases to clerks and registers. (13) In each of said complaints the amount for ex officio services is in excess of the maximum amount allowed to the probate judge and circuit court clerk of Morgan county."

Upon the hearing of the cause, the court sustained these demurrers interposed by the defendant to the complaint, and the plaintiff...