
    N. S. THOMPSON v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF PERSON COUNTY.
    (Filed 27 April, 1921.)
    Sheriffs — Fees—Salaries—Duties—Distilleries—Statutes.
    The fees or emoluments incident to a sheriff’s office enumerated in Rev., 2777, and extended by ch. 807, Public Laws of 1909, to allowance for the seizure and destruction of illicit distilleries, are excluded by a public-local law applicable to a certain county, subsequently enacted, but prior to the commencement of the term of the incumbent, wherein it is provided that the sheriff shall turn over to the county treasurer all moneys collected from fees, and receive a specified sum as a salary in lieu of his fees, with exception only of certain fees allowed to his township deputy in certain instances, the duty to seize the illicit distilleries being the same as any other required of him as sheriff of the county.
    Appeal by defendant from Horton, J., at February Term, 1921, of PERSON.
    Civil action brought by plaintiff to recover of defendant, board of commissioners, twenty dollars for each and every illicit distillery seized and captured by him during bis term of office as Sheriff of Person County, from December, 1912, to December, 1920. Plaintiff’s claim is based upon ch. 807, Public Laws 1909, which provides that it shall be the duty of the sheriff of each county to search for and seize any illicit distillery, and that he shall be allowed the sum of twenty dollars for every such distillery so seized and destroyed according to the provisions of said act.
    Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint bottomed on ch. 214, Public-Local Laws 1911, which provides that, beginning with the first Monday in April, 1911, the public officers of Person County shall be placed upon a salary basis; and that the sheriff “shall receive a salary of fifteen hundred dollars per annum in lieu of all other compensation whatsoever,” etc.
    Judgment was entered overruling the demurrer, and defendant appealed.
    
      F. 0. Carver for plaintiff.
    
    
      Robert P. Burns for defendant.
    
   Stacy, J.

¥e think the demurrer should have been sustained under authority of Mills v. Deaton, 170 N. C., 386, and Abernethy v. Comrs., 169 N. C., 631.

The method of remunerating the officers of Person County for their services was changed from the old fee system to a salary basis by ch. 214, Public-Local Laws 1911. This law provides (section 1) that the sheriff of said county may appoint a deputy in each township, who shall receive the fees for serving processes of all kinds and commissions on executions. Section 2 provides: “All other fees, commissions, profits, and emoluments of all kinds now belonging or appertaining to or hereafter by any law belonging or appertaining to the sheriff by virtue of his office shall be faithfully collected by him and turned over to the treasurer of said county, to be disposed of as hereinafter provided.” It is stipulated in section 4 that “the said sheriff shall receive a salary of $1,500 per annum in lieu of all other compensation whatsoever, and shall appoint one office deputy at a salary of $500 per annum.”

Tbe fees and emoluments incident to tbe sheriff’s office at tbe time of and prior to tbe passage of tbis act were those enumerated in section 2777 of tbe Revisal of 1905, plus commissions derived from tbe collection of taxes and allowances made to sheriffs under eb. 807, Public Laws of 1909, for tbe seizure and destruction of illicit distilleries. It was as much tbe duty of tbe sheriff to seize a distillery when used for tbe manufacture of intoxicating liquors, in violation of tbe laws of North Carolina, as it was to serve a summons, and be was made an allowance by statute for tbe one as well as for tbe other. Tbe obligation and corresponding reward, in both instances, were reciprocal and coequal. We think tbe two stand upon a parity and were affected alike by tbe new law.

In lieu of all such fees and compensation whatsoever incident to tbe sheriff’s office, it was provided in tbe salary act for Person County that be should receive a fixed stipend of $1,500 per annum. Tbis was tbe law when plaintiff was elected and inducted into office on tbe first Monday in December, 1912. His yearly compensation was then fixed, and under tbe clear wording of tbe statute be may not receive more for discharging bis duties as sheriff of said county.

The case of Comrs. v. Bain, 173 N. C., 377, is easily distinguishable from tbe one at bar, as tbe facts there presented are materially different from those now appearing. That case dealt only with the uncollected tax levies held by tbe retiring sheriff. Here a different question is involved, and no change in tbe law occurred during tbe plaintiff’s term of office.

Let judgment be entered dismissing tbe action with costs.

Reversed.  