Henderson v. County of Boulder

51 Colo. 364
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedSeptember 15, 1911
DocketNo. 6664
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 51 Colo. 364 (Henderson v. County of Boulder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Henderson v. County of Boulder, 51 Colo. 364 (Colo. 1911).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Gabbert

delivered the opinion of the court:

The constitution of the state provides as follows:

“Except as otherwise provided -in this constitution, no law shall extend the term of any public officer . or increase or diminish his salary or emoluments after his election or appointment.” .Art. V, § 30.

In support of the contention that the judgment of the district court was erroneous, it is urged that the constitutional provision above quoted does not apply to county officers; that it does not affect officers whose salaries are payable out of the fees of the office; that it does not prohibit the allowance of clerk- hire where none had been formerly allowed; and that the constitutional provision referred to is not violated by a change of classification so as to allow clerk hire. Every one elected to discharge a public duty who receives a compensation for the same is a public officer. The duties which a county judge is required to perform are certainly public in their nature, and he is, therefore, a public officer within the meaning of the constitution. His salary or compensation per annum is fixed by statute. True, it is payable only out of the fees of the [367]*367office allowed the judge and clerk of the county court, but it is, nevertheless, a salary, for he must account to the county for such fees. The question, then, to determine, is, does the constitutional provision inhibiting an increase in the salary of a public officer after his election prevent plaintiff in error from receiving the compensation for clerk hire allowed a county judge in counties of the second class?

We think it is clear that it does. When Judge Henderson was elected the statute fixing his compensation specially provided that his salary should be the sum of $3,000, and no more, out of which he was to pay his own clerk hire. In order that this might be clear and not open to question, the act fixing the salary of county judges in counties of the third class provided explicitly that the compensation of the clerk of the county court in counties of that class should be a charge upon the county judge, and paid out of his salary, and not otherwise. The act of 1907, by making Boulder county a county of the second class, allows the county judge of that county an additional compensation for clerk hire in the sum of $1200. That this increases the salary or compensation of the county judge of Boulder county appears to be too plain to admit of argument. The constitution inhibits such increase for any part of the term for which plaintiff in error wgs elected, consequently he is not entitled to any allowance for clerk hire.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Decision en bane.

Chief Justice Campbell and Mr. Justice Bailey not participating.

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

Related

Blackburn v. Board of County Commissioners of Park County
226 P.2d 784 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1951)
Bond v. Phelps
1948 OK 76 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1948)
Lancaster v. Board of Commissioners
171 P.2d 987 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1946)
Blakeley v. People ex rel. Madden
104 Colo. 206 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1939)
Blakeley v. People
89 P.2d 1015 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1939)
Board of Commissioners v. Straub
226 P. 1087 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Colo. 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-county-of-boulder-colo-1911.