62 So. 449 | Ala. Ct. App. | 1913
This action is brought by the county against the judge of probate and the sureties on his official bond to recover moneys collected by the judge of pro
The law relating to costs and fees is penal in its nature, requiring a strict construction, and the fees and ■allowances of public officers must be provided for by an enactment authorizing their collection, or the right thereto does not exist. — Troup v. Morgan County, 109 Ala. 162, 19 South. 503; Torbert v. Hale County, 131 Ala. 143, 30 South. 453.
The increase in the allowance to judges of probate for discharging duties in relation to public roads provided for by the act approved April 1, 1911, falls under the inhibition contained in section 281 of the Constitution, prohibiting the salary, fees, or compensation of an ■officer being increased or diminished during his term of office, and the increase will therefore not become effective during the present term of office of the judge of probate of Macon county. There is nothing in the act from which it is to be inferred that it was the legislative intent that the statute should go into effect except in conformity with constitutional requirements, and we are not to be understood as striking down the act as unconstitutional, but only as holding that it is not effective in this particular during the present term of the officer.
The condition of the record, and the facts set out in the bill of exceptions, do not fully apprise us of the exact amount the judge of probate has collected under
Reversed and remanded.
(Note: — This case was overruled by the Supreme-Court in the case of Macon Co. v. Abercrombie, 63 South. 985.)