Anderson v. Burton

192 S.W. 519, 174 Ky. 456, 1917 Ky. LEXIS 206
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedMarch 6, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 192 S.W. 519 (Anderson v. Burton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anderson v. Burton, 192 S.W. 519, 174 Ky. 456, 1917 Ky. LEXIS 206 (Ky. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Chief Justice Settle

Affirming.

This action was originally instituted in the Pulaski circuit court by Marion Meece, Jr., then a voter and resident -taxpayer of Pulaski county, in his own right, and on behalf of all other taxpayers of the county, against the appellant, IT. C. Anderson, superintendent of common schools of Pulaski county, and his co-defendants, the county judge and justices of the peace of Pulaski county, named in the petition as composing the fiscal court of Pulaski county, seeking to recover of the appellant, H. C. Anderson, for the benefit of the [457]*457county, $729.20, as the aggregate sum alleged to have been illegally overpaid him, by way of salary, as such superintendent for the years 1914 and 1915. It was alleged in the petition that the appellant, Anderson, was at the regular November election, 1913, legally elected superintendent of common schools of Pulaski county, and on the first Monday in January, 1914, upon executing the necessary bond and taking the required oath, was duly inducted into the office in question and has since remained the incumbent thereof. That on December 8th, 1913, following the appellant’s election and before his qualification and induction into the office as such superintendent, the fiscal court of Pulaski county made and entered of record an order fixing his salary as superintendent for each year of his term of office, at 8 cents per capita of the pupil children of Pulaski county, entitled to be taught in the common schools thereof; and that the number of pupil children' of the county of school age, as shown by the census report of Pulaski county for the year 1914, was 11,784 which at 8 cents per pupil, made the salary of the superintendent for the year 1914, amount to $942.72; that the number of-pupil-children of school age in the county as shown by the census report for the year 1915, wa!s 12,209, making his salary for that year, at 8 cents per pupil, $976.72. That on the 13th of January, 1914, the fiscal court of Pulaski county, notwithstanding its previous order of December 8th, 1913, fixing the salary of the superintendent for each year of his four years’ term of office at 8 cents per capita of the pupil children of Pulaski county, made and entered of record another and second order whereby they illegally fixed the salary of the superintendent for, and during, the four years of his term of office, at $1,-200.00 per annum,' which, had the effect to illegally change and increase his salary after his induction into the office, from $942.72 to $1,200.00 for the year 1914, and from $976.72 to $1,200.00 for the year 1915; that the second and last order was void and in violation of sections 161-235, constitution, and by reason thereof, -the appellant, Anderson, illegally received and was paid for the year 1914, the sum of $257.28 in excess of his salary; and for the year 1915, the sum of $223.28, in excess of his salary, making altogether the sum of $480.52; for the recovery of which judgment was prayed against him. By an amended petition it was alleged that the city of Somerset, county seat of Pulaski county, is a city [458]*458of the fourth class and maintains a graded school under the supervision of a city superintendent of schools, who has charge thereof; that the number of pupil children returned by the 1914 census, entitled to attend the Somerset Graded School was 1,510, and for the year 1915, 1,598; and that in fixing the salary of the superinintendent of common schools, December 8th, 1913, of Pulaski county, at 8 cents per capita, the pupils in the Somerset graded school should have been, and are required by the common school law of the State to be, deducted from the entire number of the pupil children of Pulaski county, and that such deduction left the- total number of pupil children in Pulaski county, outside of Somerset, numbering 10,724 in the year 1914, and 10,611 in the year 1915; and estimating appellant’s salary at 8 cents per pupil for the year 1914, it amounted to only $821.92, instead of $942.72, as stated in the original petition; and for the year 1915, his salary at 8 cents per pupil for the 10,611 pupils of that year amounted to $848.88, instead of $976.72, as stated in the original petition. Upon which basis he was paid in salary for the year 1914, $378.08 more than he was entitled to receive, and for the year 1915, $351.12 more than he was entitled to receive, making the total of salary illegally received by him $729.20, for which the prayer of the petition asked judgment against him.

Appellant and his co-defendants filed a special and general demurrer to the petition as amended. The circuit court overruled the general demurrer, but being of the opinion that the county judge and justices of the peace composing the fiscal court, were unnecessary and improper parties to the action, sustained the special demurrer and caused their names to be stricken from the petitioii as defendants. Shortly thereafter, the appellee, W. Sherman Burton, a resident voter and taxpayer of Pulaski county by intervening petition, concurring in the averments of the petition, as amended, asked to be made a party plaintiff to the action, which the court granted. Following’ which the plaintiff, Marion Meece, Jr., left this State to take charge of a school in the State of Georgia, which fact being made known to the court, it ordered that the name of Marion Meece, Jr., be stricken from the petition as a plaintiff and that of the appellee, W. Sherman Burton* substituted therefor. ■

Appellant, by answer, traversed the allegation of the petition as amended. Appellee filed a general demurrer [459]*459to the answer, which the circuit court sustained. Appellant refusing to plead further, the cause was submitted and judgment rendered against him on behalf of appellee for the use and benefit of the taxpayers of Pulaski county, for the $729.20 claimed in the petition and costs of the action. Appellant’s dissatisfaction with that judgment led to the present appeal.

We have so frequently declared the mandatory character of sections 161-235 Constitution and applied their provisions that it is deemed unnecessary to do more than cite a few of the cases in which they have been considered. Piercy v. Smith, &c., 117 Ky. 990; McNew v. Commonwealth, 123 Ky. 115; McNew v. Nicholas county, 125 Ky. 66; McCracken County v. Reed, 125 Ky. 420; Spalding v. Thornbury, 128 Ky. 533; Thomas v. Hager, 120 Ky. 428. In other words, the law is well settled that where the salary of an officer is fixed before or when he goes into office, it cannot be thereafter changed during the term for which he is elected. So when the fiscal court of Pulaski county on December 8th, 1913, which was after appellant’s election as county school superintendent and before his incumbency of the office, fixed his salary for his four years’ term of office at 8 cents per capita for each pupil child in Pulaski county, that limited his salary to 8 cents per capita for each pupil child.in and for each year of the four years, constituting his official term. Consequently, when the fiscal court, following its reorganization resulting’ from the November election, 1913, attempted, on January 13th, 1914, by the order then made and entered of record, to fix appellant’s salary at $1,200.00 per annum, they were endeavoring illegally to undo what had previously been legally done, December 8th, 1913.

It is, However, insisted for appellant that the order of the fiscal court of December 8th, 1913, was void and, therefore, appellant’s salary was never fixed by the fiscal court until January 13th, 1914.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wells v. Roberts
448 S.W.2d 658 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1969)
Dennis v. Rich
434 S.W.2d 632 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1968)
Jefferson County Fiscal Court. v. Thomas
130 S.W.2d 60 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1939)
Bell County Board of Education v. Lee
39 S.W.2d 492 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1931)
Price for Use of City of Catlettsburg v. Flannery
7 S.W.2d 1067 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1928)
Carl v. Thiel
277 S.W. 485 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1925)
State ex rel. Gilbert v. Board of Com'rs
222 P. 654 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1924)
Greene v. Cohen
203 S.W. 1077 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
192 S.W. 519, 174 Ky. 456, 1917 Ky. LEXIS 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-burton-kyctapp-1917.