Stookey v. Board of County Commissioners
Idaho Supreme Court
An original proceeding supreme court. Section 7 of article 18 of the constitution provides that the salaries of county officers shall be “a fixed annual salary.” The legislature might perhaps have been nearer the constitutional requirement had it provided that the salaries be fixed annually. It would then have had an annually fixed salary, which it now has not.
Read the full summary
An original proceeding supreme court. Section 7 of article 18 of the constitution provides that the salaries of county officers shall be “a fixed annual salary.” The legislature might perhaps have been nearer the constitutional requirement had it provided that the salaries be fixed annually. It would then have had an annually fixed salary, which it now has not. Instead of having a fixed salary, by this act we have a fluctuating salary, according to the whim, extravagance, parsimony or political prejudice which may control the minds and acts of men, and more especially is this true if the…
1Opinion of the CourtQuarles, J.
— This iis an original proceeding, commenced Vy the plaintiff, who is clerk of the district court anl ex-officio auditor and recorder in and for Nez Perees county, to obtain a writ of prohibition prohibiting the defendants, as commissioners of said county, from fixing the salary of the plaintiff as said officer for the years 1899 and 1900. The contention upon which this proceeding is based is that the act of March 7, 1899, known as the “County Salary Bill,” is in contravention of the constitution and void. By joint resolution submitted to the electors of the state by the legislature at its…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Reynolds v. Board of CommissionersIdaho Supreme Court · 1899
- Corker v. PenceIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
- Bonnett v. State Ex Rel. NewerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Clyne v. Bingham CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 1900