Graham County v. Smith

177 P. 271, 20 Ariz. 145, 1919 Ariz. LEXIS 135
CourtArizona Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 4, 1919
DocketCivil No. 1626
StatusPublished

This text of 177 P. 271 (Graham County v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Graham County v. Smith, 177 P. 271, 20 Ariz. 145, 1919 Ariz. LEXIS 135 (Ark. 1919).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff’s salary, as clerk of the superior court of Graham county, was fixed by an order of the [146]*146board of supervisors of said county, duly made on the nineteenth day of February, 1912, at $1,750 per annum.

His salary was paid at the rate fixed, up to and including the month of February, 1913. Since the first day of March, 1913, to the thirtieth day of April, 1917, the plaintiff’s salary was paid at the rate of $125 per month. This action is to recover $1,042.66% as the total balance of the salary at the rate of $1,750 from the first day of March, 1913. The defendant county interposed the one-year statute of limitations (subdivision 3, par. 709, Rev. Stats. Ariz. 1913) as a defense preventing the recovery of $791.66% of said total claim.

The trial court, on plaintiff’s demurrer, disallowed said defense and statute as inapplicable. The court ruled that the plaintiff’s salary, as fixed by the said order of the board of supervisors, was fixed by chapter 61, Laws of 1917, at the rate of $1,500 per annum. The judgment is for the plaintiff in the sum of $968.76. The county appeals.

"We have decided, in Santa Cruz County v. McKnight (December 31, 1918), ante, p. 103, 177 Pac. 256, that the one-year statute, when pleaded, limits the recovery. Consequently the court erred in denying the defense of the county, and permitting a recovery for balances of salary accruing more than one year prior to the tenth day of May, 1917.

The court properly decided that the plaintiff’s salary was changed by the act of March, 1917. Board of Supervisors, etc., v. Stephens and Wingfield (decided December 31, 1918), ante, p. 115, 177 Pac. 261.

The judgment is vacated, and the cause remanded, with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff for the balances of his salary, not inconsistent with this opinion.

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

Related

Santa Cruz County v. McKnight
177 P. 256 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1918)
Board of Supervisors v. Stephens
177 P. 261 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
177 P. 271, 20 Ariz. 145, 1919 Ariz. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-county-v-smith-ariz-1919.