Lemoine v. City of St. Louis
Lemoine v. City of St. Louis
Opinion of the Court
The petition, as amended in the court below, was as follows: “The plaintiff states that the defendant is and was at the times hereinafter mentioned, a municipal corporation duly created by law; and that under the terms of an act of the general assembly of the state, entitled: ‘An act to provide for the registration of all voters in .cities having a population of over one hundred thousand inhabitants,’ etc., approved March 31, 1883, all the expenses of registering voters and conducting elections in St. Louis are imposed on the defendant; and by the terms of said law a dep
“That said overtime and overwork of plaintiff were directed to be performed by the recorder of voters of said city, and were necessary and essential in conducting and carrying out and executing said law in St. Louis, and the plaintiff is entitled to have and recover of defendant therefor the sum of $1,187.68, for which he asks judgment, with interest and costs.”
The defendant demurred to the petition on the ground that said petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained and final judgment entered for the defendant, and an appeal was duly granted the plaintiff to this court.
An act of the general assembly of Missouri, approved March.31, 1883 (Laws of 1883, p. 38), provides for the registration of voters and the manner of conducting elections in St. Louis. A recorder of voters is required to be appointed by the governoi’, with the con- ' sent of the senate, for the term of four years from January 1, 1883, with the compensation of $2,500 per year, payable out of the city treasury. (Sec. 4.) The recorder of voters may appoint such clerks and deputies as he may deem necessary to faithfully and promptly
The question in this case is. whether the principal deputy recorder of voters in sections 8 and 9 of the act is entitled to compensation in addition to his salary.
By paragraph 8 of section 26 of article 3 of the charter of the city of St. Louis it is provided inter alia, a,s follows: “And that no other officer receiving a salary shall receive any fees, or other compensation for his services. ’’ Thus it will appear that plaintiff was the principal deputy recorder of voters, receiving a salary of $1,500 per annum, and that he was vested with the power of the recorder of voters, during the latter’s absence; that the office was required to be kept open from 9 a. M., to 5 p. m., each day, except that for twenty days before the close of registration at each election it was required to be kept open until 9 o’clock p. m., and that by the terms of the city charter, above quoted, any officer of the city is prohibited from receiving any fees or compensation for his services if he receives a salary.
The circuit court very properly held that plaintiff was not entitled to any extra compensation beyond his salary. The extra compensation allowed by section 11 is expressly given to the extra deputies appointed by the recorder of voters and not to Ms principal deputy whose salary was fixed by law. The statute furnishes its own interpretation, independent of the ordinances, which deny extra compensation. The judgment is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.