Case Name: Edward C. Wilson, Plaintiff, v. William A. Bleloch and Others, as and Composing The Board of Town Auditors, etc., and Others, Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-03-11
Citations: 125 A.D. 191
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edward C. Wilson, Plaintiff, v. William A. Bleloch and Others, as and Composing The Board of Town Auditors, etc., and Others, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 191–196

Head Matter:
Edward C. Wilson, Plaintiff, v. William A. Bleloch and Others, as and Composing The Board of Town Auditors, etc., and Others, Defendants.
Second Department,
March 11, 1908.
Town — compensation of town clerk, supervisor and assessor—no additional compensation for rendering statutory duties.
Section 3 of chapter 344 of the Laws of 1893 providing that a town clerk in towns of the population of 20,000 or more shall be entitled to the same compensation for attending meetings of the town boards as other members of such board in addition to the compensation provided by section- -178 of the Town Law., only entitles such clerk to extra compensation for attending meetings of the town board of which he is a member by virtue of section 160 of the Town Law. He is not entitled to extra compensation for attending meetings of the boards of assessors, auditors and highway commissioners.
A supervisor is only entitled to the per diem compensation of two dollars allowed by section 178 of the Town Law for services rendered to the town, and cannot charge additional compensation for attending meetings of the town board, that being part of his statutory duty.
Assessors being limited by section 178 of the Town Law to three dollars per day for services rendered to the town, are not entitled to additional compensation for making up jury lists in conjunction with the supervisor and town clerk, as required by section 1035 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Woodward and Hooker, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Submission of a controversy upon an agreed statement of facts, pursuant to section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff sues as a taxpayer.
Thomas A. E. Wilson, for the plaintiff.
Nathan P. Bushnell, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Gaynor, J. :
1. Section 178 of the Town Law (chapter 569 of the Laws of 1890, as amended by chapters 124 and 312 of the Laws of 1904) fixes the compensation of town clerks, supervisors, assessors, justices of the peace, overseers of the poor and election officers at two dollars a day " for each day actually and necessarily devoted by them to the service of the town in the duties of their respective offices, when no fee is allowed by law for the service "; except that assessors may be given a compensation of three dollars a day by the Town Board, and that has been done in this case. By section 160 the town clerk is made a member of the town board. It is composed of the supervisor, town clerk and justices of the peace, and there is no other board of that official or statute name. Section 3 of chapter 344 of the Laws of 1893 provides that the town clerk of a town of a population of 20,000 or more (which is the case of this town) " shall be entitled to receive the same compensation for attending all meetings of town boards in his town as each other member of such board, in addition to all compensation, salary and fees to which he is now entitled by law for the performance of all other duties of said office This does not create any new duties; it only provides an additional compensation for an existing duty, i. e., for attending meetings of the town board, of which he is a member. Theretofore such attendance was in the same class with all of his duties, and for which a compensation of two dollars a day. was allowed him; thereafter it was singled out by the said act and he was allowed to receive for it three dollars in addition to his general compensation (Matter of Town of Hempstead, 86 App. Div. 321). In the case before us the town clerk has construed the said act to make it his duty to meet with the other boards of the town, viz., the board of assessors, the board of auditors and the board of highway commissioners, and to charge the town three dollars for each of such meetings, and his bill to that effect has been audited and paid. This is error and the money must be refunded. It is true that the said act .of 1893 says "Town Boards", but the plural was used negligently. There is only one town board in a town. The other boards are boards of the town, it is true, but he could not act with such boards without being a member of them, and the act does not make him such. Bor does it impose on him the duty of keeping their minutes. They dp that themselves, and the act makes no change in that respect.
2. As we have already seen, the compensation of supervisors chargeable against the town is two dollars for each day actually and necessarily spent in the service of the town, " in the duties of their respective offices". The supervisor has charged this compensation, and also, and for the, same days, two dollars a day for attending meetings of the boards of the town of which he is by law a member, or which he is required to attend as supervisor. This is illegal. He can charge nothing in addition to the per diem compensation of two dollars to which the law restricts him. There is no statute permitting him to charge an additional compensation for attending meetings of boards or officials, as is the case with town clerks, as we have seen. The additional compensation of two dollars a day audited and paid for attending • such meetings must therefore be refunded.
3. The case of the assessors is the same; they are limited to a general compensation of three dollars a day, and there is no statute giving them additional compensation. In this case they have charged three dollars a day additional for the days spent in making up a list of trial jurors in conjunction with the supervisor and town clerk, as required by section 1035 of the Code of Civil Procedure, having also charged and been allowed and paid their regular compensation of three dollars a day for the same days. This is illegal, and the amount so received must be refunded.
Judgment for the plaintiff, to be settled before Mr. Justice GrAYNOR.
Jenks and High, JJ., concurred; Woodward, J., read for defendants, with whom Hooker, J., concurred.