Case Name: The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Cloud, Appellee, v. A. Ott et al., Appellants
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1916-06-10
Citations: 99 Kan. 216
Docket Number: No. 20,217
Parties: The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Cloud, Appellee, v. A. Ott et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 216–221

Head Matter:
No. 20,217.
The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Cloud, Appellee, v. A. Ott et al., Appellants.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
Salary — Register of Deeds — Statute Changing Salary During Term— Construction of Statute. A register of deeds was allowed as com- . pensation $1100 in fees, and if in an.y year the fees collected were more than that sum, one-half the excess. In the middle of a year a statute took effect giving him a salary and requiring all fees to he turned into the treasury. -At that time he had collected $1002 in fees. Held, he was not entitled to all the fees, but should be compensated at the rate of $1100 per year for the time until the statute took effect, plus one-half the excess fees.
Appeal from Cloud district court; John C. HOGIN, judge.
Original opinion filed June 10, 1916.
Affirmed. Opinion on rehearing (post, p. 217) filed December 9, 1916. Reaffirmed.
F. W. Sturges, and Fred W. Sturges, jr., both of Concordia, for the appellants.
S. M. Brewster, attorney-general, S. N. Hawkes, John L. Hunt, assistants attorney-general, and M. V. B. Van De Mark, county attorney, for the appellee.
J. B. Tomlinson, Charles D. Shukers, both of Independence, Charles D. Ise, and Charles D. Welch, both of Coffeyville, as amici curise.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Burch, J.:
The action was one to recover fees collected by the defendant as register of deeds. The plaintiff recovered and the defendant appeals.
The defendant took office on January 13, 1913, under a statute which fixed his compensation as follows: He was allowed to retain out of fees collected the sum of $1100, and if in any year more than that sum were collected, one-half the excess was to be paid to the county. On July 1, 1913, a statute took effect giving the defendant a salary of $1500 per year and requiring him to turn all fees collected into the general revenue fund of the county. From January 13 to July 1 the defend ant collected fees amounting to $1002, which he claims he had the right to keep.
The sum of $1100 allowed the defendant by the old law should be regarded as a yearly compensation to be augmented by one-half the excess over that sum, if any, and he should be compensated at that rate per year for the time he served prior to July 1. Assuming, in order to avoid fractions, that the defendant served six full months before the new law took effect, he could keep one-half of a year's compensation, or $550, out of the fees collected. Deducting this sum from $1002, the amount of fees collected, would leave $452 to be divided between him and the county, or $226 to each. The court applied this rule and no complaint is made of the computation by which the amount of the judgment was obtained.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.