The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-11-28

Can Charge Only One Dollar for RI
cOrding a Mortgage.

San Cnur&e ORiy ODe DOllar Tor He
cOrding n Mortgage.
In the case which went up from Lake
county, the lower courts decision was
against the constitutionality of the law.
This decision was reversed and the law was
held valid as TO fees. OF this the court
said in its decision written by Judge Hack
ney:
THE appellee was elected recorder of
Lake county In the year 1892. and there
after the appellants relator demanded the
rreeofding OF a mortgage and rendered as a
fusal OF the appellee to record such mort
gage for less than s1.25. the appellants re-
mandamus to enforce his demand. No
question is made as to the form of the
petition, but the appellee insists that, while
provides that the fee for the service de-
manded Is 81. the act is unconstitutional,
and. therefore, he was entitled under the
The lnsistence is that the act in ques-
ton violates Sections % and %, Article 4
of the State Constitution; which provide
laws In relation to fees and salaries, ex-
cept that the laws may be so made as to
proportion to the population and the neces-
sary services required, and providing that
in all cases where general law can be made
uniform operation throughout the State
MUCH of the discussion Of counsel has
DcGn QlIcCIcu 10 the pIODOSlllOn InaI the
failure or the Legislature to provide for
the Recorder Of Shelby county. while pro-
viding salaries for the. recorders of the
brought the enactment within the above
constitutional inhibitions.
The real question at issue upon the
record Is one. not of the salary provided
by the act Of 1891, but concerns only the
fee with which the appellant was properly
chargeable for the recording of the mort
gage, a question arising between the citi-
zens who demanded the service and the
officer whose duty it was to perform that
service. The act of 1891 provided a salary
for the appellee, and required him TO pay
the receipts OF his ol.lce into the county
TO pay that salary; bur the question before
US does not arise between the appellee
and the trea surer as TO the duty OF paying
the fees into the treasury, nor as to draw
ing the salary therefrom; nor does Ii in
volve an inquiry as to the claims of the APP
pellee or OF his county to the fee Tor
recording the realtors mortgage. Our in
vestigstion, therefore, must be confined 10
the validity of the law SO far as IL is pre-
scribed for recording mortgages. unless IL
shall be found that the fee provisions and
independent as TO cause the fall OF either
by the invalidity of the other.
"A full reading OF the act will disclose
that the system OF fees therein provided
services of al recorders of the State. but
also as 10 all other Offices whose incum-
bents are required to perform services for
persons inQuiring therefor. The validity
OF the act so far as IL provides salaries for
the various officers could not and should
not affect the question az 10 what fees
should be charged 10 and collected from the
citizen. and II the salary provisions of the
act were entirely eliminated. no good rea-
SON appears for holding Invalid the system
10 the authority of the iaw-making power
and the right OF such citizens.
No one would contend that the Legis-