Case Name: The State ex rel. Banks, Appellant, vs. McClure and others, Respondents
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1895-11-08
Citations: 91 Wis. 313
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State ex rel. Banks, Appellant, vs. McClure and others, Respondents.
Judges: MaRshall, J., took no part,
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 313–318

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. Banks, Appellant, vs. McClure and others, Respondents.
October 22
November 8, 1895.
Counties: Salary of sheriff: Construction of statutes.
TJnclei' seo, 694, S. & B. Ann. Stats, (providing that the county board at the annual meeting in November shall flx the salary of every salaried county officer who is to be elected during the ensuing year, and that the salary so fixed shall not be increased or diminished during his term of office), and sec. 694a (providing that the county board may by resolution make the sheriff a salaried offi cer, and that when such a resolution shall have been passed it shall be the duty of the board, “ at its next annual meeting in November, to fix a salary for the sheriff in the same manner as salaries are fixed for other county officers ” under sec. 694), the salary of the sheriff must be fixed before his election, and cannot be changed during his term of office. Newman, J., dissents.
ArPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Douglas county: R. D. Mabshall, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
Mandarnos. In October, 1894, the board of supervisors of Douglas county passed a resolution making the office of sheriff of said county a salaried office, under ch. 53, Laws of 1881 (sec. 694a, S. & B. Ann. Stats.). A new sheriff was elected at the annual election on the first Tuesday in November, 1894, and at the regular annual meeting of the board of supervisors held afterwards during the same month the county board refused to fix the salary of the sheriff. Whereupon, while said board was still in session, the relator, a tax-payer of the county, sued out an alternative writ of mwndam'as, requiring the board to fix said salary or show cause to the contrary. Upon the return day of the writ the defendants moved to quash the writ, which motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and plaintiff appealed.
For the appellant the cause was submitted on the brief of Reed <&. Reed, attorneys, and Hiram Hayes and F. H. Remington, of counsel.
For the respondents there was a brief by Charles R. Frid-ley and H. C. Sloan, and oral argument by Mr. Sloan.

Opinion:
WiNslow, J.
The solution of the controversy depends on the construction, of secs. 694, 694a, S. & B. Ann. Stats. Sec. 694, as amended by ch. 260, Laws of 1885, provides, in substance, that the county board, at its annual meeting in November, shall fix the salary of every county officer who is to he elected during the ensuing year, and who is entitled to a salary from the county treasury, and that such salary shall not be increased or diminished during his term of office. Sec. 694a (eh. 53, Laws of 1881) provides substantially that the county board of any county may by resolution make the sheriff a salaried officer, and that, when such a resolution shall have been passed, " it shall be the duty of the county board, at its next cmnual meeting in November, to fix the salary for the sheriff in the same manner as salaries are fixed for other county officers," under sec. 694, E. S. The relator says that the words " at its next annual meeting " are mandatory, and compel the fixing of the sheriff's salary at that time, though he may have been previously elected. The respondents say that the words " in the same manner " as other salaries are fixed are controlling, and mean that, as in the case of other county officers, it must be fixed before the election of the sheriff.
It is very apparent by the terms of sec. 694, E. S., that the legislature intended to make an harmonious general law, by which the salaries of all salaried county officers should be fixed before their election, doubtless for the purpose of removing from the question personal and political feelings, and of informing a candidate for office what the salary of that office was to be. Hull v. Winnebago Co. 54 Wis. 291. It is equally apparent that both of these objects are -desirable objects. Sec. 694a seems just as clearly to have been intended to place the sheriff's office within the general system. The " manner " in which the salaries of other county officers are fixed is by resolution of the board passed before the election of the officer. The sheriff's salary, when he has one, is to be fixed " in the same manner." If these words are to have any substantial or useful meaning, they must be construed to mean that the sheriff's salary is to be fixed before his election, for the time when it is to be fixed is really one of the most important elements in the manner of fixing it. The word "manner" in a statute may undoubtedly include " time," if such seems to have been the intent - of the law makers. The intent of the lawmakers here being clearly to make the fixing of the sheriff's salary a part of the general system, we feel obliged to construe the words " in the same manner " as including the element of " time." Any other construction would in our judgment defeat the manifest purpose of the legislature. The fact that the law provides that the salary shall be fixed at the next annual meeting in November after the sheriff's office has been ohanged to a salaried office cannot be allowed to control the result. We construe the two statutes as meaning that the sheriff, after he has become a salaried officer, is entitled to know before his election what salary he is to receive, and after his eleotion is secure from change in his salary, as well as other county officials.
By the Court. — 'Judgment affirmed.
MaRshall, J., took no part,