78 Iowa 328 | Iowa | 1889
‘‘ Memorandum in relation to collection of personal property delinquent taxes due Adams county, Iowa, made between said Adams county and Ed. H. Hunter, as follows: Ed. II. Hunter is hereby appointed by the
“[Signed] F. M. Thompson,
“ G-. W. Iden, •
“Committee Board of Supervisors.
“Ed. H. Huntee.
“Dated Corning, Iowa, April 22, 1884.”
This instrument was founded upon a resolution of the board of supervisors, passed on the eleventh day of April, 1884, which is as follows: “ Whereas, a large amount of personal taxes — about fifteen thousand dollars — are now remaining unpaid, and are considered uncollectible, at the treasurer’s office; and whereas, it is considered desirable to save the taxpayers as much of this tax as possible; therefore, be it resolved, that Ed. H. Hunter, county treasurer, be and is instructed to collect all delinquent personal taxes; the said Hunter to report to the board of supervisors at their regular meeting in June and January the amount of such taxes
“Corning, Iowa, January 19, 1888.
“ Received of Ed. H. Hunter, treasurer of Adams county, Iowa, the sum of four thousand, three hundred and fifty-three dollars and thirty cents, in full settlement of the compensation due the undersigned under the contract dated April 22, 1884, in relation to the special collection of delinquent personal property taxes, entered into between the undersigned and the board of supervisors of Adams county, Iowa, by its committee, F. M. Thompson and Gr. W. Iden.
“[Signed] Ed. H. Hunter.”
This paper, with the alleged contract, was brought into the room where the final settlement was made, and
It is conceded by counsel for appellant that the board of supervisors had no authority to allow the county treasurer' a greater compensation than that allowed by law. But they contend that the alleged contract was not made with Hunter as county treasurer. We are cited to the case of Wilhelm v. Cedar County, 50 Iowa, 254, as authority for the employment of the county treasurer to collect delinquent taxes. In that case the person employed was neither treasurer nor a deputy treasurer. He was a special agent, employed to take promissory notes of persons for delinquent taxes. This court held that such an employment was valid, and that the agent was entitled to reasonable compensation therefor. But in the case at bar Hunter
Affirmed.