
    Henry Debolt v. The Trustees of Cincinnati Township.
    An officer whose fees are regulated by statute can charge fees for those services only to which compensation is by law affixed.
    The office of township treasurer having been abolished in Cincinnati, and the county treasurer of Hamilton county being required to hold all moneys in his hands belonging to the township of Cincinnati, subject to the orders of the trustees of the township, the county treasurer can not charge the fees allowed by law to the township treasurers for the receipt and disbursement of township funds, in the .absence of any law allowing him to do so.
    Petition in error to reverse tbe judgment of the district court of Hamilton county.
    Debolt’s term, as treasurer of Hamilton county, expired in 1852. When he came to a settlement with the trustees of Cincinnati township, he held township funds amounting to $11,687.65. On the 9th of June, 1852, he paid them $4,129.67 of this sum, for which they gave a receipt, as a payment on account. The balance, $7,557.98, was retained by him as fees, “ for receiving, safe-keeping, and- paying over ” moneys belonging to the township, during his term of office. To test his right to these fees, an amicable suit was brought against him, in the court of common pleas of Hamilton county, by the trustees; and judgment was rendered against Debolt, and he appealed.
    The district court likewise rendered judgment against him ; and to reverse that judgment, he now prosecutes this petition in error.
    The act of March 5, 1831, fixes the compensation of township ^treasurers. The 23d section provides “ that each township treasurer shall be allowed, and may retain, three per centum of all moneys paid into the township treasury, for receiving, safe-keeping, and paying over the same to the order of the trustees.”
    The act of February 25, 1834, “ to amend the several acts regulating the township of Cincinnati,” provides, in section 3, “ that-from and after the taking effect of this act, the offices of township treasurer, overseer of the poor, and fence-viewers, for the township of Cincinnati, shall be and they are hereby abolished; and the treasurer of Hamilton county shall hold all moneys which are or may be in his hands, belonging to the township of Cincinnati, subject to the orders of the trustees of said township, any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding: Provided, that nothing in this act shall be so construed as to change or vary the application of the funds of said township from the object designated by law.”
    Under the last-mentioned act, the treasurer of the county has retained the funds of the township in the county treasury, receiving from the county auditor an order therefor, and disbursed the same on the orders of the trustees of the township. For the purpose of keeping the fund and drafts upon it separate from the county funds, and orders on the county treasury, the treasurer of the county has required the trustees to draw upon him, as treasurer of the township, and has kept separate accounts of said funds in separate books.. The office of township treasurer, however, being abolished, he performed these duties by virtue of his office of county treasurer, under the above-mentioned law.
    The treasurer of the county claims that he is entitled to the fee» prescribed for treasurers of townships.
    
      Pugh, for plaintiff in error.
    
      
      James & Jackson, for defendants in error.
   J. R. Swan, J.

The fees of the county treasurer are limited and prescribed by law. No officer, whose compensation is regulated *by fees, can charge for a particular service, unless the law specifically gives him fees for that service. The law- under consideration, abolished the office of township treasurer, and devolved most of the duties of the township treasurer upon the county treasurer ; but gave no fees therefor.

Fees are not allowed upon an implication; but if they were, the implication in this case is, that the legislature, if they intended to give the fees of a township treasurer to the county treasurer, would have said so.

Judgment below affirmed.

Bartley, C. J., and Brinkerhoee, Scott, and Sutliee, JJ., concurred.  