Board of Commissioners v. Fitzgerald

Indiana Court of Appeals

Board of Commissioners v. Fitzgerald

79 N.E. 393, 40 Ind. App. 24, 1906 Ind. App. LEXIS 4

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 27, 1906

DocketNo. 5,681

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 N.E. 393 (Board of Commissioners v. Fitzgerald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Board of Commissioners v. Fitzgerald, 79 N.E. 393, 40 Ind. App. 24, 1906 Ind. App. LEXIS 4 (Ind. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Wiley, P. J.

Appellee was elected sheriff of Daviess county and entered upon the duties of his office January 1, 1904.

This appeal involves two questions: (1) His right to retain, over and above his salary, the several amonnts allowed and paid him for his per diem attendance upon the sessions of the circuit court; and (2) his right to retain, over and above his salary, certain fees, designated by statute, for receiving prisoners into, and discharging them from, the county jail.

[25]*251. The trial court made a special finding of facts, and stated its conclusions of law thereon. By its conclusions of law the court stated that appellee was entitled to recover his per diem allowance, hut was not entitled to recover on the other branch of his case. Under the assignment of errors, the sufficiency of the complaint and the first conclusion of law are attacked. These may be considered together, for they present one and the same question.

Appellee has also assigned cross-errors upon the second conclusion of law, and the question thus presented may be considered with the others.

2. The right of appellant to retain, in excess of his salary, the amounts allowed him for his per diem attendance upon the sessions of the circuit and commissioners’ courts has been affirmed by many decisions of the Supreme and Appellate Courts, the most recent case being that of Board, etc., v. Crone (1905), 36 Ind. App. 283, and authorities cited. The same question in principle was involved and decided in Board, etc., v. Neely (1905), 36 Ind. App. 706. This disposes of the first question.

3. As to the second, appellee’s right, as sheriff, to have paid to him by the county twenty-five cents for receiving and discharging each prisoner committed to the county jail, and to retain the same in addition to his fixed salary, is settled adversely to him by the case of Starr v. Board, etc. (1907), ante, 7, and upon the authority of that case it must be held that appellee is not entitled to recover the fees provided by statute for receiving into, and discharging from, the jail persons committed to his care.

4. Each paragraph of the complaint must be held good, for they .count on appellee’s right to recover his per diem for his attendance upon the circuit and commissioners’ court, which he covered into the treasury, as well as upon his right to recover the “in” and “out” fees, as keeper of the county jail.

We find no reversible error, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Wiley, P. J.

Appellee was elected sheriff of Daviess county and entered upon the duties of his office January 1, 1904.

This appeal involves two questions: (1) His right to retain, over and above his salary, the several amonnts allowed and paid him for his per diem attendance upon the sessions of the circuit court; and (2) his right to retain, over and above his salary, certain fees, designated by statute, for receiving prisoners into, and discharging them from, the county jail.

[25]*251. The trial court made a special finding of facts, and stated its conclusions of law thereon. By its conclusions of law the court stated that appellee was entitled to recover his per diem allowance, hut was not entitled to recover on the other branch of his case. Under the assignment of errors, the sufficiency of the complaint and the first conclusion of law are attacked. These may be considered together, for they present one and the same question.

Appellee has also assigned cross-errors upon the second conclusion of law, and the question thus presented may be considered with the others.

2. The right of appellant to retain, in excess of his salary, the amounts allowed him for his per diem attendance upon the sessions of the circuit and commissioners’ courts has been affirmed by many decisions of the Supreme and Appellate Courts, the most recent case being that of Board, etc., v. Crone (1905), 36 Ind. App. 283, and authorities cited. The same question in principle was involved and decided in Board, etc., v. Neely (1905), 36 Ind. App. 706. This disposes of the first question.

3. As to the second, appellee’s right, as sheriff, to have paid to him by the county twenty-five cents for receiving and discharging each prisoner committed to the county jail, and to retain the same in addition to his fixed salary, is settled adversely to him by the case of Starr v. Board, etc. (1907), ante, 7, and upon the authority of that case it must be held that appellee is not entitled to recover the fees provided by statute for receiving into, and discharging from, the jail persons committed to his care.

4. Each paragraph of the complaint must be held good, for they .count on appellee’s right to recover his per diem for his attendance upon the circuit and commissioners’ court, which he covered into the treasury, as well as upon his right to recover the “in” and “out” fees, as keeper of the county jail.

We find no reversible error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 N.E. 393, 40 Ind. App. 24, 1906 Ind. App. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-commissioners-v-fitzgerald-indctapp-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack