Waldrop v. Henry

Decision Date12 January 1922
Docket Number6 Div. 591.
Citation207 Ala. 128,92 So. 425
PartiesWALDROP, CLERK, v. HENRY, TREASURER.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Dan A. Greene, Judge.

Action by M. V. Henry, as Treasurer of Jefferson County, against William J. Waldrop, as Clerk, to recover of him the dog tax fees received and retained by the clerk. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.

Ellis &amp Matthews, of Birmingham, for appellant.

John P McCoy, of Birmingham, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

Section 9 of the act approved September 30, 1919 (Gen. Acts 1919, pp 1077-1079), authorized the circuit clerk "to collect a fee of $.25 [cents] for each receipt issued" by him in execution of the so-called Dog Law; and the unmistakable purpose was to compensate the circuit clerk "for the services required by this act [i. e., Dog Law] to be rendered" by him, through this fee. The title to this act, assuming to state its general design as well as some of its particular provisions, contains this confirmatory expression in reference to the compensation of the circuit clerk:

"*** And to provide for compensating the circuit clerk for his services as required herein."

It is therefore manifest that, unless some other law intervened or intervenes to thwart or to alter, through construction, the effect of this latest declared legislative purpose, the circuit clerk, individually, is entitled to all the "receipt fees" he was authorized to collect under section 9 of the "Dog Law."

Did the local act approved September 14, 1915 (Local Acts 1915 pp. 374, 375), whereby the Jefferson county salary amendment to the Constitution of 1901 (Gen. Acts 1911, p. 47) was carried into effect, operate, through construction or otherwise, to characterize as public funds the proceeds of such "receipt fees," collected under the subsequently enacted "Dog Law" by the Jefferson county circuit clerk, and thereby require their payment into the Jefferson county treasury in obedience to the provisions of section 2 of the Local Act of 1915, supra, which reads:

"That when this act goes into effect, the cost, charges of courts, fees and commissions now authorized by law to be collected and retained by the several officers of Jefferson county above named, shall continue to be collected, but shall be paid into the county treasury by the officer collecting the same, as other moneys belonging to the county are paid."

The Jefferson county salary amendment to the Constitution of 1901 became a part of the Constitution on November 16, 1912. Seay's Comp. Amendments to the Constitution, p. 3. That amendment is as follows:

"The Legislature of Alabama may hereafter, from time to time, by general or local laws, fix, regulate and alter the costs, charges of courts, fees, commissions, allowances or salaries to be charged or received by any county officer of Jefferson county, including the method and basis of their compensation."

At least one effect of this amendment was to exempt Jefferson county and its officers from the limitations prescribed by ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • House v. Cullman County
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 24, 1992
    ......by reason of amendments of it applicable to those counties"); Osborn v. Henry, 200 Ala. 353, 357, 76 So. 119, 123 (1917) ("general legislation intended to establish a uniform system .. has no application here, in view of the fferson county amendment"); Waldrop v. Henry, 207 Ala. 128, 129, 92 So. 425, 425 (1922) ("one effect of this amendment was to exempt Jefferson county and its officers from the ......
  • Henry v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 28, 1928
    ...term of office that violated section 281 of the Constitution so far as concerned Jefferson county and its said official. In Waldrop v. Henry, 207 Ala. 128, 92 So. 425, it declared that the amendment (Seay's Comp. Amendment to Const. p. 2) exempts officers of Jefferson county (circuit clerks......
  • Almon v. Morgan County
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 3, 1944
    ...... Ex parte Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co., 209 Ala. 264, 96. So. 83; Riley v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 18 Ala.App. 279,. 92 So. 23; Henry v. State ex rel. Hartsfield, 218. Ala. 71(9), 117 So. 626; Waldrop v. Henry, 207 Ala. 128, 92 So. 425; Hawkins v. Jefferson County, 233. Ala. 49, ......
  • Dillon v. Hamilton
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 21, 1935
    ...Appellant contends that the act of 1915 does not apply to the commission for assessing the Bessemer taxes enacted in 1923 ( Waldrop v. Henry, 207 Ala. 128, 92 So. 425); section 2 of the Act of September 7, 1923 (Gen.Acts 1923, p. 248), and the act of 1931 (Gen.Acts 1931, p. 441), are violat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT