Wright v. Board of Comm'rs of Hancock County

• Decision Date: 18 October 1884
• Docket Number: 11,473
• Citation: 98 Ind. 88
• Parties: Wright, Auditor, v. Board of Commissioners of Hancock County
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

98 Ind. 88

Wright, Auditor, v. Board of Commissioners of Hancock County

No. 11,473

Supreme Court of Indiana

October 18, 1884

From the Hancock Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

C. G Offutt and R. A. Black, for appellant.

J. A New and J. W. Jones, for appellee.

OPINION

Elliott, C. J.

The appellant's complaint is for services rendered to the county by him, as auditor, in proceedings for the establishment of a free gravel road.

Where a fixed salary is provided by law, and fees for services are specifically designated, the officer can rightfully claim no other compensation. Nowles v. Board, etc., 86 Ind. 179; Donaldson v. Board, etc., 92 Ind. 80. Unless a statute expressly, or by fair implication, makes provision for compensation, a claim can not be enforced by legal process against the county except where there is a contract stipulating for the services, and the contract is itself within the authority of the county commissioners. Miller v. Embree, 88 Ind. 133; Board, etc., v. Burford, 93 Ind. 383; Board, etc., v. Mitchell, 93 Ind. 307; Hoffman v. Board, etc., 96 Ind. 84; Moon v. Board, etc., 97 Ind. 176.

There is no contract in this case, and the right of recovery, if one exists, must depend upon the statute.

In 1877 an act was passed containing various provisions concerning the establishment of free roads, and, among them, the following: "The surveyor * * and the county auditor shall receive such compensation for their services as is now or may be fixed by law" for their services. R. S. 1881 sec. 5098. On this statute appellant relies. The appellee meets the claim of the appellant by the proposition that the act of 1877, in the particular here involved, was repealed by the act of 1879. In that act it is provided "The auditor of each county shall be allowed the sum of twelve hundred dollars a year for his services, and no more, except as provided for in this act." R. S. 1881, sec. 5907. This language is broad and comprehensive, and it is difficult to perceive how the auditor can claim any other compensation than that provided in the act. In another section of that act the fees that the auditor shall receive are specifically designated. R. S. 1881, sec. 5098. But there are other sections in the act of 1879 which require consideration. The first section declares that officers shall receive such compensation "and none other," as the act provides, except when otherwise provided by law. In section 24 of that act provision is made for fees in highway cases in which there is litigation. Section 39 makes it a criminal offence for the commissioners, except "in cases of indispensable public necessity," to make any "allowance not specifically required by law," to any county auditor or other officer, and section 41 repeals all conflicting laws. There can, it seems clear to us, be no doubt that the appellee is right in contending that the act of 1879 repeals the earlier...