
    Findley I. Wright, App’lt, v. The Mayor, etc., Resp’ts.
    
      (New York Court of Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed May 9, 1888.)
    
    1. County bookkeeper—Salary of—Tax bevy of 1867—Effect of.
    The provision in the tax levy of 1867, providing for the salary of the county bookkeeper in New York county at $5,000 does not apply to any other than that for which it was passed.
    2. Same—Laws 1870, chap. 187, give comptroller power to designate, SALARY OF.
    
      Held, that admitting that the provision above quoted, fixed the salary for subsequent years, yet Laws of 1870, chap. 187, giving the comptroller power to designate the salaries of all officers and subordinates of the department of finance, left the amount of salaries of the officers in question, at his discretion, as he was an officer of that department.
    3. Same—Evidence of designation—What is sufficient.
    
      Held, that the fact that the deputy comptroller offered to ar.d did pay a certain sum was sufficient evidence that the comptroller designated that, amount.
    This appeal brings up for review exceptions taken by the
    
      plaintiff and appellant, and ordered to be heard in the first instance at the general term.
    The action was brought to recover for services claimed to have been rendered as county bookkeeper between the 9th day of August, 1872, and the first of May, 1874. The complaint alleges appellant’s employment by defendant’s comptroller in March of 1872, as an assistant, at a salary of $1750 per annum, his subsequent discharge of the duties of county bookkeeper, and his recognition as such by his superior officers from the date above mentioned up to the consolidation of the city and county government on May 1st, 1874. It is further alleged that the compensation of the county bookkeeper was fixed by an act of the 23d of April, 1867, at $5,000 per annum. The difference between the compensation at the rate of $1,750, received by the plaintiff during the period indicated and compensation at the rate of $5,000 per annum is demanded with interest.
    The answer alleges plaintiff’s employment at the rate of $1,750 fixed by the comptroller in pursuance of law, denies his employment at any other or greater rate, and denies his appointment as county bookkeeper. It also avers plaintiff’s acceptance of the salary of $1,750 during the entire time claimed for in full acquittance of his claim and his execution of receipts in full without duress.
    The only evidence in the case is that of the plaintiff himself, and it shows his discharge of the duties claimed by him to pertain to the office of county bookkeeper, but admits that the comptroller refused to compensate him at any greater rate than 1,750 per annum. The witness also admits signing the pay-rolls offered in evidence, but swears that he protested to the paymaster and claimed at the rate of $5,000 per annum.
    The exceptions taken were to granting of a motion to dismiss the complaint and to the denial of a motion for a new trial.
    
      E. Sandford, for appl’t; H. R. Beekman, for resp’ts.
   Per Curiam.

This officer, as county bookkeeper, was an officer of a bureau of the department of finance, and was an officer or subordinate of that department, and, therefore. subject to all provisions of law respecting the appointment, removal ana compensation of subordinates in the comptroller’s office or finance department.

The provision in the tax levy of 1867, making provision for the salary of the county bookkeper at $5,000, is not of the character of those general, permanent provisions of the tax levies which have been held to survive the particular year in which they were passed, and to apply to all further action on the part of city officers.

But even if it were intended to and did fix the salary at $5,000 for all subsequent years, yet the act, chapter 137 of the Laws of 1870, giving the comptroller the power to desígnate the salaries of all officers and subordinates in the department of finance, left the amount of his salary at the discretion of the comptroller; and the fact that thereafter the deputy comptroller offered or agreed to pay this officer $1,750, and it was so allowed and paid by the comptroller, is sufficient evidence that the comptroller designated it at that amount.

We think, therefore, that this judgment is right and should be affirmed.  