Demers v. Board of County Commissioners

47 P. 567, 5 Kan. App. 271, 1897 Kan. App. LEXIS 527
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 4, 1897
DocketNo. 246
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 47 P. 567 (Demers v. Board of County Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Demers v. Board of County Commissioners, 47 P. 567, 5 Kan. App. 271, 1897 Kan. App. LEXIS 527 (kanctapp 1897).

Opinion

Gilkeson, P. J.

Two questions are-involved in this case : First, the interpretation of chapter 92, Laws of 1893 ; second, what is the legal fee of the register of deeds for filing an affidavit of renewal of a chattel mortgage?

Chapter 92, Laws of 1893, “An act regulating the fees and salaries of the County Treasurer, County Clerk, Probate Judge, Clerk of the District Court, and Register of Deeds of Cloud County, Kansas,” provides, as to the register of deeds, as follows :

“Sec. 6. That the register of deeds of Cloud County, shall be allowed by the board of county commissioners, as full compensation for his services, the sum of eighteen hundred dollars per annum, said salary to be paid out of the county treasury in quarterly installments, upon the order of the board of county commissioners. ’ ’
“ Sec. 8. That the fees for the services now allowed, or hereafter to be allowed by law for the several officers herein named, shall be charged and collected by the proper officer, and when so charged and collected shall become the property of Cloud County, and ou or before the tenth day of each month, for the preceding month, before the hour of four o’clock P. M. the money so collected by each officer, as fees, shall be turned over to the county treasurer by the proper officer, who shall take his receipt therefor in duplicate. One receipt to be kept by the officer or person paying the money, the other to be deposited forthwith [273]*273in the office of the county clerk, who shall immediately charge the county treasurer therewith under the proper head, in the book kept for the purpose of charging the liabilities of the county treasurer to the county.
“ Sec. 9. That at the last of March, June, September and December of each year, or waiting ten days thereafter, each officer named in this act shall file his report in the office of the county clerk, which report shall show all the moneys collected by virtue of being such officer during the quarter just ended for which fees were chargeable by law; he shall be chargeable for the full legal fee to the county for all services performed by such officer, unless the same is remitted by the board of county commissioners; at the time of filing his quarterly report, each officer shall take and subscribe an oath to be. attached thereto, substantially as follows : I,----, of Cloud County, Kansas, do hereby solemnly swear that the foregoing exhibit shows all the money, or other things valuable coming into my hands for the quarter ending-, 18 — , by virtue of being such officer, or for which fees were chargeable by law. So help me God.’

1 Salary of register of deed of Cloud County

The language of section 6 is very plain in so far as it relates to the amount of compensation of the officer for the performance of his official duties. •“■e S^ia^ receive eighteen hundred dollars per annum, no more, no less, for all acts performed and services rendered by him as' such officer, regardless of the receipts of his office, or other sources of his revenue. This is conceded by all parties to this action.

But the contention is as to what becomes of the fees and moneys collected by him; to whom do they belong? For it will be noticed that sections 8 and 9 provide for “fees, moneys, or other things valuable,” and clearly make a distinction between them.

[274]*274Section 8 provides :

‘£ That the fees for the services noiu allowed or hereafter to be allowed by laiv . . . shall be charged and collected . . . and when so charged and collected, shall become the property of Cloud County.”

Now, what is to be charged and collected? ££ Fees allowed by law.” If not recognized by law they are neither to be charged nor collected. When the fees allowed by law are charged and collected they are the property of, and belong to, the county of Cloud. They must be charged and collected. .The money so collected as fees shall be turned over to the county treasurer. We read it, — the money so collected as fees allowed by law shall be turned over to the county treasurer; not money extorted or. dishonestly obtained. Surely the county is not asking that it be made particeps criminis.

££ Sec. 9. shall file his report in the office of the county clerk, which report shall show all the moneys collected by virtue of being such officer . . . for which fees were chargeable by law.”

[275]*275 2. Liability to county is what.

[274]*274We read it, that the report shall show all the moneys collected for services which were chargeable by law by him as register of deeds. That is, this report should show the sums he collected for the items, and each one of them, for which the law permits him to make a charge of any kind, without regard to the correctness of the charge. To illustrate : for some items he may not have charged and collected the full legal fee through mistake, or, the party from whom it was collectable being unable to pay it, he may have given the difference to him ; for others he may have through mistake or otherwise charged more than allowed by law. But his report must show these things, and the total thereof will then be, “All moneys col[275]*275lected during the quarter for which fees were chargeable by law.” This view is strengthened by the next provision of the same section : “He shall be chargeable ^01' full legal fee to the county f01, ap services performed by such officer, unless the same be remitted by the board of county commissioners.” This limits, qualifies and explains what precedes it. He shall be charged with the “full legal fee,” that is, the total amount of the different items at their legal rate. In other words, if his report shows fifteen hundred items, each charged for separately at the legal rate, aggregating the sum of six hundred dollars, he would then be charged with six hundred dollars regardless of what he collected — “unless the same be remitted by the board of county commissioners.” Now suppose his report shows that he collected only $590 for these fifteen hundred items, then the county commissioners have the power to remit the ten dollars uncollected; and this is the only sense in which this remittance clause can be used.

But upon the other hand, let us assume that this report shows an excess ; that for these fifteen hundred items he has charged $625. He in the same manner is charged with the full legal fee, viz., six hundred dollars, and they cannot remit the twenty-five dollars excess for the reason that, as they can charge only the full legal fee, they have nothing to remit; and it will certainly not be claimed that the Board, by any process of remission or otherwise, can empower him to keep this amount — can legalize his unlawful act. The charge against him is confined to the sum total of legal fees for the items specified in the report — to “the full legal fee ” and nothing more, but it may be less in the discretion of the Board ; and we are further convinced that this is the intent and meaning of the law when we [276]*276examine the oath required by section nine, “- do solemnly swear that the foregoing exhibit shows all the money or other things valuable coming into my hands ... by virtue of being such officer, or for which fees were char gable by law.”

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

Related

Lawrence County Controller's Report
71 Pa. D. & C. 175 (Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas, 1950)
County of St. Louis v. Magie
269 N.W. 105 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 P. 567, 5 Kan. App. 271, 1897 Kan. App. LEXIS 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demers-v-board-of-county-commissioners-kanctapp-1897.