The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-05-29
mr.. DICKEY LOSES
Supreme Court Against Him on
Special Fees.
coUNTY's CLAIM SEEMS GOOD
New Trial ordered-ca.e Involves
About 100000 In Special Fees
for Court Clerk.

The Hennepin county commissioners
won a victory in the supreme court to-
day in the fee controversy with Courtland
N. Dickey. clerk Of courts. A new trial
is ordered In the suit, which the district
court decided in favor Of Mr.. sDickey.
From the3wordtngS Of the sppint on, which
| is una nimous, lit appears hat Mr. Dickey
| is liable to- the county for LII fees he has
licollectedtfor the past six years, amounts
Ling to- over $40, 900. ss n - ..ss. M " III
| The suit tried only involves two cases.
where employees OF the: clerks Office had
furnished reports to abstract companies.
The court holds that these services come
within the wording of the Hennepin coun-
ty fee bill, and that9thesfees should go to
the county. The fact that the county att
torney once advised that the clerk was
entitled to the fees does not amount TO
an estoppel of the.gconnty's claim. The
fee bill provides "a specified sum for
| Is not required" - 4Aaf
1T would seem to be implied clearly"
says Judge Lovely, in his opinion, that
the duty Ito make a search by the clerk
and the giving out of information desired
thereby Is thus embraced in the terms
of this fee bill. by as positive, an infer
ence as gave him a iperauisite- before the
/ salary act ANY ether duty, ~,
The court goes further and holds that
the clerk may not waive the right to any
| fee, or render services for less than
scheduled rates, sfor.the, county is entitled
to the full amount - &
| The syllabus says: 5a
Board of County Commissioners of Hen
nepin County, appellant, vs. CORTLAND
| N. Dickey, respondent.
First-Previous to 1891, the emoluments
Of the clerk of the district court of Henne-
| pin county were established by special
fee schedule. In hat year this officer was
given fixed salary in lieu of all perquis-
ties which he had before that time been
| allowed, but after that was required to
| turn over to the county treasury all fees
collected by him in his official capacity.
Second-Under thes system thus adopted
| since the act of 1871 the furnishing by
the clerk of unauthenticated statements
to commercial agencies and abstract COM
panies made from an examination of the
files and records in hisecustody during Of
| ffce hours was wit him the purview and
scope of his official employment and he
was not authorized to appropriate to his
kown use the emoluments realized there
| from. .cHI:hsE 81. G5M.s=
| -Third-The fact that the county attor-
pey had advised the board of commission
ers that compensation derived from state
merits furnished to abstract companies
and commercial agencies containing infor-
nation from the files and records in the
clerks custody were not a part of the
emoluments of the office, but belonged to
| the clerk, and the further fact that the
county commissioners acquiesced in such
advice and neglected to interfere with the
appropriation of such sums by the clerk
does not amount to an estoppel of the
I county's rights to collect the sums SO
! appropriated. Judgment reversed and a
new trial ordered. r.
| .5S@ i So .saE Gt< -I,oyely T