Court Opinion

ID: 9832418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:53:46.564495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.624775
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee urges error in the judgment of this court in two respects, to wit; (1) In holding that the several orders of the commissioners’ court from February 16, 1907, to February 11, 1913, could not reasonably be construed as orders fixing the compensation of the county treasurer on a percentage or commission basis not to exceed the maximum amount named. (2) In failing to hold that plaintiff was estopped by reason of his acceptance of and acquiescence in said orders, and especially those orders made by the commissioners’ court after plaintiff went into office.
[4, 5] 1. It will be noted that in the order of February 16, 1907, the commissioners’ court failed to fix any rate of compensation on a commission or percentage basis for the year ending November 28, 1907, but merely stated that , the maximum should be “a total fee of $1,600.”’ The rate was not fixed by the court, but left to be determined by the amount of receipts and disbursements on the one hand, and the fixed maximum of $1,-600 on the other. The rate could not be determined by either court or officer until the close of the year, and was then of no controlling effect, but only an incident to and result of the two factors above mentioned. We do not think that such an order can reasonably be construed as one fixing the rate of compensation, or as one fixing the compensation of the treasurer on a commission basis. Upon no other basis has the commissioners’ court authority to fix the treasurer’s compensation. It is provided in the order of February 16th that:
“From November 28, 1907, until the commissioners’ court may change it, he [the treasurer] shall receive 1% per cent, for receiving and 1% per cent, for disbursing county funds.”
Therefore, from November 28, 1907, to February 12, 1909, there was no limitation upon the salary of the treasurer except as to the rate of compensation, to wit, 1% per cent. Hence, the order of February 12, 1909, which provides that “the county treasurer is to receive the same compensation that he received for the last two years, being sixteen hundred dollars per year,” cannot be held to be a legal exercise of the authority of the commissioners’ court to fix the treasurer’s compensation, because if the expression “for the last two years” be referable to the year preceding November 28, 1907, as shown herein, no rate was fixed at all. If the expression be referable to that portion of the order which provided for a compensation of 1% per cent., such order did not attempt to fix any maximum of fees at all. The subsequent orders set out in the original opinion do not purport to fix any rate of commission, unless they do so by reference to the first order. As the only rate fixed in this one, as we view it, is 1% per cent, commission, we hold that our conclusions reached in the original opinion must be adhered to. Moreover, the majority, at least, hold that the commissioners’ court had no power to fix the maximum compensation of the treasurer at a less amount than that fixed by statute, except as it might be reduced by lowering the rate of commission. Associate Justice Dunklin does not concur in this last conclusion, but does concur in the holding that the order of February 16, 1907, does not lawfully fix any other rate of compensation than 1% per cent. I-Ie is of *710the opinion that an order of the commissioners’ court, fixing a maximum of fees to be retained at a certain sum less than the maximum of $2,000 fixed by the statute, without fixing the rate of commissions, would be valid, for in that event the maximum rate of commissions provided by the statutes would govern, and the effect of such an order would be that the treasurer would be allowed to retain commissions at that rate until the maximum amount so fixed by the order should be collected, and thereafter the treasurer would receive nothing more for his services.
2. As to the second proposition urged, we think the holding in the Montgomery v. Talley Case is conclusive. If, as it is held, the treasurer would not be estopped from claiming the compensation allowed by statute because he had accepted the office, knowing that the commissioners’ court had attempted to fix a different basis of compensation, we cannot see how he would be estopped by reason of his continuance in office and his acceptance of the compensation allowed, and his alleged tacit acquiescence in the construction of an order which did not meet the requirements of the law.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.