Board of Supervisors v. Westbrook

Mississippi Supreme Court October 15, 1886

Board of Supervisors v. Westbrook, 64 Miss. 312 (Miss. 1886)

Arnold

Opinion of the Court

Arnold, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

*314By § 790 of the code, it was the duty of appellant to fix the salary of the chief health officer of their county. What the salary should be was a matter within their discretion, provided they did not exceed the maximum specified in the statute or place it so low as to virtually abolish the office in the county. Within these limits, the salary should have been fixed at what the services of the officer were reasonably worth, and on this basis it might, have been changed from time to time,, if deemed necessary and proper. But the laws for the protection of the public health, under which appellee was appointed, are of general application, and cannot be nullified in any county by the failure of the board of supervisors to fix the salary of .the general health officer of the county, after he has been duly appointed, or by their fixing it at a rate so far below the maximum that no competent physician will accept the office. If the operation of the law is unsatisfactory in any county, it must find relief in the mode provided by the statute or from the legislature. The statute cannot be repealed or abrogated, directly or indirectly, by a board of supervisors.

The jury accepted as true the testimony that one dollar per month was not adequate compensation for the services rendered, and there was no effort to show neglect of duty or want of qualification on the part of appellee, or that the services of a competent physician could have been secured for the reduced salary.

It appears that the action of appellants in reducing the salary of the chief health officer of their county from fifteen dollars to one dollar per month was intended to dispense with the office in that county altogether, and that practically it was an ouster by indirection of appellee from the office which had been created, and to which he had been appointed by an authority higher than the board of supervisors. Such action was a nullity, and the salary previously fixed by the board was not thereby changed.

On the facts of record the result reached in the court below was right, and the judgment is affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Board of Supervisors of De Soto County v. J. H. P. Westbrook
Cited By: 10 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Health Officer. Salary made nominal. Effect. Section 790, Code 1880. Case in judgment. . Section 790, Code of 1880, .provides for the. appointment by the governor, of a health officer in each county, whose salary is to be fixéd hy the board of ■supervisors of the county. W. was appointed health officer of the county of I). and bis salary fixed at fifteen dollars per month. Afterward the board of supervisors reduced the. salary to one dollar per month. W. continued to serve as health officer for- some months, and then sued the board of supervisors for the reasonable value of his services, which he estimated, at fifteen dollars per month. There was evidence at the trial which tended to show that plaintiff’s services were worth what he demanded, and that the salary of one dollar per month was totally inadequate therefor. The verdict and judgment were in favor of plaintiff for the amount of his- demand. Held, that the action of the board of supervisors in reducing W.’s salary, being practically an attempt to abolish his office, was a nullity, and the salary previously fixed was not thereby changed.