25 Minn. 366 | Minn. | 1879
The plaintiff was treasurer of Scott county, and .as such was, under Laws 1877, e. 97, required by the board of county commissioners to “visit” certain “localities” in the county, for the collection of taxes. In making the required visits, he necessarily paid out certain sums of money for board and travelling expenses, and also necessarily employed and paid a clerk to assist him in receiving taxes. For the sums so paid, he presented a bill to the county board, which allowed the items for board and travelling expenses, and disallowed the item for clerk-hire. The county attorney appealed from the allowance, to the district court, which seems to have determined that the plaintiff was entitled to be .allowed his board and travelling expenses, and also for clerk-hire, though we do not see how the matter of clerk-hire was before the court, inasmuch as the plaintiff does not appear to have taken any appeal from its disallowance. From the
The office of county treasurer being created by statute, and the compensation of its incumbent wholly regulated thereby, ■the plain meaning and effect of these provisions is this: The county treasurer, in his settlement with the proper authoriities, is to be allowed for two things only; first, for his expenditures for the advertising, blank books and stationery men-tioned; second, for his certain specified fees and percentages (within a prescribed limit) for his services in receiving, collecting and disbursing the moneys which it is his official duty to receive, collect o.r disburse. The law authorizes no allow.ance or compensation to him for anything else. The expenditures for which he is to be allowed are specified; and this excludes the allowance of any other expenditures, of whatever nature. The word “services” is evidently used to include all the labor of performing the duties of treasurer, in receiving, -collecting and disbursing as above mentioned, whether such
A county treasurer is no more entitled to be allowed for his - expenditures for board, travelling expenses or clerk-hire when visiting other “localities” than the county seat, for the purpose of making collections, than he would be for like expenditures at the county seat itself. The phrase “personal services” is evidently used by the statute as referring to the - before-mentioned “services” of the treasurer, as distinguished from the expenditures which were specified as proper subjects of allowance. From these considerations and conclusions, it follows that the plaintiff is not entitled to be allowed for any part of the bill presented by him to the county board.
Order reversed.