{
  "id": 4693509,
  "name": "GUY H. HERBERT, Tax Assessor, Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHAVES COUNTY, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Herbert v. Board of County Commissioners",
  "decision_date": "1913-07-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 1575",
  "first_page": "129",
  "last_page": "131",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 N.M. 129"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "17 N. M. 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        208925
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/17/0081-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Md. 376",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Md.",
      "case_ids": [
        1863783
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/md/15/0376-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Minn. 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Minn.",
      "case_ids": [
        546104
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/minn/10/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N. E. 291",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Iowa 367",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Iowa",
      "case_ids": [
        2276948
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/iowa/11/0367-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Pac. 742",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "case_ids": [
        8879684
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/okla/24/0082-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 L. Ed. 800",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed.",
      "case_ids": [
        3332090
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/40/0449-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Pet. 448",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Pet.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Pac. 131",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 S. W. 860",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N. W. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "case_ids": [
        5293228
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nd/5/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Atl. 162",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 Pa. St. 254",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa.",
      "case_ids": [
        1050835
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/pa/83/0254-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Pac. 7",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 S. W. 979",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 Pac. 302",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 Pac. 29",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "case_ids": [
        3349970
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/idaho/19/0531-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Colo. 202",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Colo.",
      "case_ids": [
        2590475
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/colo/6/0202-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 Pac. 617",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 Pac. 649",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "case_ids": [
        4463081,
        4463131
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/or/62/0592-01",
        "/or/62/0574-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 Pac. 617",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 Pac. 649",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "case_ids": [
        4463081,
        4463131
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/or/62/0592-01",
        "/or/62/0574-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 334,
    "char_count": 3737,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4361789046388419
    },
    "sha256": "adada5b368d0f68f85f369a44ccf1f428d197ff0358f3e4fc679cc9ba5619b64",
    "simhash": "1:83f3553bb8d62508",
    "word_count": 664
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:46:47.817418+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GUY H. HERBERT, Tax Assessor, Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHAVES COUNTY, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OP THE COURT.\nROBERTS, C. J. \u2014\nThis action was instituted in the court below by appellant, who is the tax assessor of Chaves Count], to recover compensation for his services from the County of Chaves, as such official. The ease at bar presents no features that have not been airead] fully considered and decided by this court. In the case of State v. Romero, 124 Pac. 649, we held that,\n\u201cThe compensation of a county officer, under the provisions of section 1 of article X of the Constiution, is dependent upon the enactment by the legislature of a salary law, and he can not recover for his services until such a law is passed, and then only as provided by such act.\"\nSee also, State v. Romero, 125 Pac. 617.\nNo law lias been enacted, fixing the compensation of tax assessors, consequently under the rule announced, in the decided case, from which we see no. reason to depart, it follows that the judgment of the lower court, sustaining the demurrer to appellant\u2019s complaint and dismissing the action, was proper, and will be affirmed, and it is so ordered.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ROBERTS, C. J. \u2014"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. A. Dunn and L. O. Fullen, Roswell, N. M., for appellant.",
      "Kenneth E. Scott, Tomlinson Port, Boswell, N. M., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 1575,\nJuly 25, 1913.]\nGUY H. HERBERT, Tax Assessor, Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHAVES COUNTY, Appellee.\nSYLLABUS (BY THE COURT)\n1. The judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the authority of State v. Romero, 124 Pac. 649, and State v. Romero, 125 Pac. 617, decided by this court on March 23, 1912.\nP. 131\nAppeal from the District Court of Chaves County; John T. McClure, District Judge;\naffirmed.\nW. A. Dunn and L. O. Fullen, Roswell, N. M., for appellant.\nAll laws of -the Territory in force at time of admission into the Union, not inconsistent with the Constitution, remain in force. Const., art. XXII, sec. 4; People v. County Conxmrs. of Grand Co., 6 Colo. 202; State v. Edwards, (Mont.) Ill Pac. 734; Ex parte Schriber, (Idaho(, 114 Pac. 29; Lace v. People, (Colo.) 95 Pac. 302; State v. Dircks, (Mo.) Ill S. W. 1; Cahoon v. Commonwealth, 20 Grat. (Ya.) 733; Wright v. Woods, (I\u00a3y.) 27 S. W. 979; State v .Third Judicial District Court, (Mont.) 37 Pac. 7; Commonwealth v .Collis, 10 Phils. 430; Wattson v. Chester & D. B. B. Co., 83 Pa. St. 254; Sheppard v. Collis, 1 Wkly Notes Cas. 494; 8 Cyc. 759; Doddridge v. Sup\u2019rs. v. Stout, 9 W. Ya. 703; Lewis v. Lackawanna County, (Pa.) 50 Atl. 162.\nYalid and regularly enacted statutes of the Territory for the compensation of county officers not abrogated or repealed by Const. Doherty v. Bansom County, (N. D.) 63 N. W. 148; Norman v. Cain, (By.) 31 S. W. 860; State v. Burdick, (Wyo.) 33 Pac. 131; Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 448, 10 L. Ed. 800; People v. Co. Commrs., 6 Colo. 202; Const., art. X, sec. 1.\nWhen no compensation is fixed by law, intention of lawmakers is that the officer shall receive a reasonable compensation. Bohart v. Anderson, (Okla.) 103 Pac. 742; Bipley v. Gifford, 11 Iowa 367; Lavin v. Board of Commrs., 151 111. App. 236; judgment affirmed 92 N. E. 291; 2 Lewis\u2019 Sutherlands Stat. Const. (2nd ed.) sec. 642.\nSound public policy requires that the Constitution be construed to give county officers compensation, unless terms absolutely prohibit it. 8 Cyc. 733; Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 107; Citj of Baltimore v. State, 15 Md. 376; In re Griffin, Bed. Cas. No. 5815, (Chase 364); Const., art. X, sec. 1.\nKenneth E. Scott, Tomlinson Port, Boswell, N. M., for appellee.\nSalaries and fees of county officers fixed. Const., art. 10, sec. 1.\nProvision is self-executing. State v. Eomero, 124 Pac. 649, 17 N. M. 81.\nTerritorial laws remain in force. Const., Art. 13, sec. 4.\nOfficers allowed no compensation where no provision made by law. 29' Cyc. 1422; Chance v. Marion County, 64 111. 66; State ex rel. Delgado v. Eomero, 17 N. M. 81; Const., art. 20, sec. 9."
  },
  "file_name": "0129-01",
  "first_page_order": 149,
  "last_page_order": 151
}