Case ID: mo_85/html/0645-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Williams, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chariton County.
    Í. Officers, Fees of. No fees are allowed an officer, except where expressly given and allowed by law.
    3. -: assessor : listing of dogs. Dogs are assessed in the list of personal property, and the assessor is allowed no increase in his emoluments for assessing them.
    
      Error to Chariton Circuit Court.
    
    Affirmed.
    This case was submitted to the Chariton county circuit court on an agreed statement of facts, and upon that statement judgment was rendered in favor of respondent, from which plaintiff appealed.
    This agreed statement shows that in the general election of 1876, plaintiff was elected assessor of Chariton county, for which place he duly qualified and entered on the discharge of its duties. That the legislature in 1877 passed a law making it the duty of the county assessor ' to list and register each and every dog over three months of age, owned or kept by any person on the first of August of that year and following years, which list and registration were required to be under oath and to be ■ .returned to the clerk of the county court in like manner ns in the return of the assessment of personal property. That appellant, Williams, as. such assessor, did list all dogs in his county during the term of his office, and return the same as he returned personal property, and he presented his bill for such services which was not paid by the county court, and that the services were worth what charged for, if any liability exists against the county.
    
      
      Kiriley & Wallace for plaintiff in error.
    When the law required the dogs to be listed the same as personal property, by implication, the officer listing them was entitled to his pay for such labor, the same as for returning lists of personal property, and it is on this basis that the charges were made. See Laws of 1877, p. 325, sec. 1. It certainly cannot be claimed that the legislature intended to compel an officer to do double work and not compensate Mm therefor.
    
      Q. W. Bell for defendant in error.
   Pee Cueiam.

Under the authority of the case of Shed v. Ry. Co., 67 Mo. 687, no fees are allowed an officer except where expressly given and allowed by law. Moreover the compensation of assessors, except in St. Louis county, is fixed at a certain sum, and this sum includes all personal property assessed to one owner. Dogs being assessed in the list of personal property makes no increase in the emoluments of the assessor. See section 69, W. S. 1872, p. 1172. Therefore, judgment affirmed.