The Bozeman weekly chronicle., 1888-01-25

les, but as 10 their degree, no matter to
what extent, the sureties upon his bond.
so far as this question is concerned, will
be held liable. The duties under the
new law, in relation to bounties, had
relation to and were connected with the
business to be performed by the probate
judge under tho old law, which it tamend-
ed. Mr.. Justice Field, in State w.
Singer, 18th W., 8, eI unciates the
general and, for us, the control
ling doctrine upon the subject, rs
follows: "The official bond OF
parties undoubtedly covers not merely
duties imposed by existing law, but
duties belonging to and naturally
connected with their offices or business
imposed by subsequent law" 'But the
new duties should have some relation to
or connection with such Office or business
and not be disconnected from and foreign
to both."
A bond given by an officer before
law is enacted, imposing duties different,
not in kind but in degree from those be-
fore pertaining to the Office, may be fair
ly held to he q security for such addition
al duties. Tho distinction is between an
increase by the Legislature of the duties
of an officer of the same nature or like
kind as those before pertaining to it after
4 4I,co ~, how'd and thn nI-
dition of new duties, not of the same
nature or kind with those before belong
ing to it." Every official 5ond is execut-
ed witt, knowledge of the right and
practice of the Legislature to enlarge tn g
| duties of the officer" Campbell, c. ] in
Demo va. the State, Goth Miss. p. 949
This doctrine is substantially mainta ined
by the follow ing authorities: Evens VS..
City of Trenton, 9th N. J. p. 764 Com :
monwealth vs. Holmes, 25th Grattan, p.
III; Turpen vs.. The Board of Commits
sioners, etc., Ind. p. l72.
In Evans vs.. The City OF Trenton,
supr Potts, J. uses the following langu-
age applicable to the case at bar. at is
well settled rule that person accept.
ing a public office with fixed salary is
bound to perform the duties of the office
He cannot legally claim additional com.
pensition for the discharged of these
duties even though the salary may be a
very inadequate remuneration for the
services. Nor does it alter the case that
by subsequent statutes or ordinances,
his duties are increased and not his sal
ary. His undertaking is to perform the
duties of his Office Whatever they may
be from time to time, during his continu.
ance in office for the compensation
stipulated, whsther these duties are de-
minished or increased.
| Whenever he considers the conipensta-
tion inadequente lie is at liberty to re-
sign. Andrews vs.. United States, 2nj
: Story; c. G. r. 202. People We. Super
visors, 1st Hill, 1862. Russier VS.. Prap
7th Selgl & Rawle. p. Az. Angel.
Ames on corporations, 317. This rule
is of Importance to the public. The sue
cessful effort to obtain Office is not un
frequently followed by efforts to in
crease its emoluments, while the inces
SAINT changes which the progressiv
spirit of the times is introducing effect
almost every year changes in tn
character and additions in the amour
| of duty in almost every official station
| And to allow these changes and add
| tions to lay the foundation of claim
! for extra services would soon introduc,
intolerable mischief. The rule TO
! should be rigidlv enforced. The statu
= tes of the legislature and the ordir
, ances of our municipal corp oratior
seldom prescribed with much deta
a and particularity the duties annexed
!. public office, and it requires but littl
A igenuity to raise nice distinctions bt
n tween what may and what may not b
a | strictly official; and il these distinction
are mucn favored by the courts of justit
q it may lead TO great abuse" 1t is IL
q general rule of law that it is competeI
. for the legislature to increase ordecreal
!. the duties incumbent upon public @
n | ficers and to increase and deminish the
il compensation in so far as it is not pr
!. hibited by the fundamental law. Peop
h VS.. VanGaskin 9th Montana, p. 80
"a Demner VS.. Hobert. 10th. p. 19l Lang Y
" Mayer, Slst N. Y. p. 423; Haynes v
e The State. 22nd Tenn. p. 4sO.
nj We are of tho opinion, therefore, tn
a. the statute of March 9th, 1887 und
/, which the appellant Carson by reason
i. his being the incumbent of the office
"a probate Judge Of Gallatin county, CLAIM
n the right to withhold the sum deman,
IA ed in the complaint, and which W,
n an amendment to the bounty law of 1ss
10 l the duties prescribed bv which he WI
n required to perform, did not enlarge IL
a. duties Of the probate judge in kind b
,r only in degree; and under the forsgoir
AT principals of law he is liable therefore
to well as the sureties upon the bond.
,e This disposes of the questions relic
upon by the appellants. The motion
for the Judgement on the pleadin
- against the appellant Carson and I'll
=, sureties on the official bond were pro
!, erly sustained.
!, The Judgement is affirmed with cosi
MI VIM. J. GALBRAITH,
I, Associate Justice.
- We concur: N. w. Mcconnell, G.
~ i Tboo r. Racb Aosociota Just;co