Court Opinion

ID: 9828141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:08:36.082467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:44.578002
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehékrihg.-
We do not feel the necessity of discussing the many assignments of error that have been presented in appellees’ motion for rehearing, and content ourselves with the discussion of only one, viz., the twenty-fifth assignment of error. ■. In this assignment of error, the appellees insist that this court is without authority, even if it is correct in its conclusion, to render judgmdnt for the sum prayed for, to wit, $1,500, because appellees contend that the proof shows without dispute that the county clerk was entitled to excess fees over and above the fixed statutory salary, which amount to $554.43, and that therefore, if our judgment is correct, it could be for no more than .$945.57, with interest. .
We think a complete answer to this contention is that appellee Hollis never at any time raised any such issue by his pleading and never made any such contention in the trial court. His answer contained, in addition to his demurrer and special exceptions, only a general denial. Furthermore, the undisputed evidence in the case shows that in making his annual report for the year 1930 the clerk credited himself with the maximum allowed him in the sum of $2,750 and with the so-called ex officio allowance in the sum of $1,500, and he nowhere claimed, nor did he appropriate unto himself, any excess fees. On the other hand, he testified positively that he combined in a lump sum all current fees collected by him and all delinquent fees col*838lected by him, and showed by his testimony that, after deducting the maximum fees allowed him and his so-called ex of-ficio allowance of $1,500, he paid every dollar of the balance to his deputies and assistants, and he testified that he did not have enough money on hand to pay them the maximum sums which were allowed them by order of the commissioners' court, and simply prorated the sums so paid among them. Therefore neither the pleading nor the proof will justify the contention that the clerk was entitled to any excess fees.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.