
    Sage v. Commissioners of Vinton County.
    
      County commissioners without authority — To allow auditor compensation for blanks — Section 1029, Revised Statutes.
    
    County commissioners are without authority to allow the auditor of their county compensation for his services in furnishing blanks • to assessors pursuant to the requirement of Section 1029, Revised Statutes.
    (No. 11723
    Decided May 3, 1910.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Vinton county.
    Sage,'as auditor, presented to the commissioners an account for services rendered for the years 1897 to 1902, inclusive, for furnishing blanks and giving instructions to the assessors of the county for those years. His claim was rejected by the commissioners and he appealed to the court of common pleas where the facts were found as follows:
    
      “1. That said Harvey B. Sage was auditor of Vinton county, Ohio, during the years 1897 to 1902, inclusive, and during the time covered by the services for which compensation was asked for in said account disallowed 'by said commissioners. -
    
      “2. That the said Harvey B. Sage, as auditor, during his said incumbency of said office, furnished to the assessors of Vinton county, the blanks necessary for the performance of their duties, as required of him by Sections 1029 and 1528 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio; that said blanks were printed by and procured from business houses engaged in the printing business, and were paid for, on the allowance of the board of commissioners, out of the Vinton county treasury; that no changes were made in said printed blanks, by said auditor. Except that he furnished to said assessors blanks showing the yearly changes of titles to real estate where lands had been divided, to enable said assessors to place valuations ori the parts sold.
    
      “3. That the said auditor apportioned said blanks to said several assessors, during said several years, according to the number required by each, in the performance of his duties, and delivered them to said assessors at their yearly meetings in April with said auditor — or shortly thereafter — as required by Section 2749, Revised Statutes of Ohio; that .at the time of said deliveries said auditor gave said assessors instructions as to their duties as prescribed by said Section 2749; that thereafter said auditor from time to time upon the request of said assessors, gave them further instructions by mail, concerning their said duties.
    . “4- That no part of said account, disallowed by said board of commissioners, was for any money expended by said auditor; but said account was for the foregoing enumerated services as such auditor.
    “5. That the foregoing services and duties’ performed by said auditor were reasonably worth the several amounts charged in said account, so as aforesaid disallowed by said commissioners of said Vinton county.”
    Upon the facts so found the court of common pleas rejected the claim. Its judgment was affirmed by the circuit court.
    
      
      Mr. George W. 'Holland, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Mr. James TV. Darby, prosecuting attorney, for defendant in error.
   Shauck, J.

From -the finding of facts it is entirely dear that the claim of the auditor is not for any disbursement made by him, but solely for compensation for his services in furnishing blanks to assessors and instructing them in their duties. The claim for compensation is ■ made, notwithstanding the rule long established in this state, and recognized in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff, and in the several opinions of the judges of the circuit court who have reached different conclusions upon the question presented, that if a statute imposes a duty upon a public officer it is presumed to .be performed by him in consideration of the general emoluments of his office unless the legislature has clearly indicated the intention that compensation shall be paid for the performance of the duty so imposed. The view urged by counsel is, that the requirement of this rule is met by Section 1029, Revised Statutes (Bates’ Statutes of 1904), which provides that, “The auditor shall furnish the several assessors all blanks necessary for their use in the discharge of the duties enjoined on them, by law, and all reasonable charges therefor shall be allowed by the county commissioners, and paid out of the county treasury.” Certainly here is no express provision for the compensation of the auditor. The terms employed }n the...statute: do'not require more than the allowance by the commissioners of such reasonable sums as may be paid to printers or stationers who furnish the blanks to the county. In its primary signification the word “charge” in the connection does not exceed this, for a charge is a load, a weight, or a burden. It does not in any primary sense embrace compensation. The view that the auditor and commissioners may, by agreement, include compensation to the auditor and fix the rate thereof is not only unauthorized by the statute, but it is in conflict with the express provisions of Sections 1077 and 1078, which relate directly and exclusively to the auditor’s compensation. The former section provides that, “All claims for serv1 ices of the county auditors, which are payable from the county treasury, shall be made out in detail according to the rates named in the foregoing sections, and shall be presented to the county commissioners who after being satisfied that the labor has been performed, shall allow said bill. * * *.” The latter section provides: “The fees and compensation provided for by the foregoing sections shall be in full for all services lawfully required to be done by the auditors of such counties; and it shall be unlawful for any county auditor to charge or receive any other or further fees or compensation, either as clerk of any board, or for any other services rendered by him.”

The obvious effect of these provisions is to prevent agreements between the auditor and commissioners as to the rate of any compensation which he is to receive, the legislature having itself by the sections referred to fixed the rates of all compensation which he is to be entitled to receive from the county treasury. In the' “foregoing sections” referred to no rate whatever is fixed for the compensation which the auditor claims in the present case. It may, therefore, be regarded as prohibited by the express terms of the statute. These conclusions are in accordance with the views expressed in Jones, Auditor, v. Commissioners of Lucas County, 57 Ohio St., 189, where the related sections of the statute are analyzed and the principles involved are stated with clearness.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, C. J., Crew, Spear, Davis and 'Price, JJ., concur.  