THOMAS v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM. OF OKLAHOMA CTY.

THOMAS v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM. OF OKLAHOMA CTY.
1959 OK 67
339 P.2d 1061
Case Number: 38429, 38430
Decided: 04/14/1959
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

M.M. THOMAS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.

HAROLD C. THEUS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.

Syllabus by the Court

¶0 Compensation allowed a county attorney under the provisions of Chap. 7a, S.L.1957, as remuneration for additional non-germane duties is not an increase of the salary of his office within the meaning of the statutes (

Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; W.R. Wallace, Jr., Judge.

Proceedings to collect salary claims by two assistant county attorneys of Oklahoma County. The claims were denied by order of the Board of County Commissioners. They appealed to the District Court. The District Court affirmed the Commissioners' order, resulting in these consolidated appeals. Affirmed.

Edward M. Box, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

John C. Moran, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, Justice.

¶1 These appeals, No. 38,429, M.M. Thomas v. Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County, and No. 38,430, Harold C. Theus v. Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County, involve identical issues of law and fact and are consolidated for the purpose of decision.

¶2 The facts upon which these actions arose are that M.M. Thomas as "Civil Assistant" and Harold C. Theus as "First Assistant" to the County Attorney of Oklahoma County were entitled under the provisions of

¶3 The deputies, Thomas and Theus, contended before the Board of County Commissioners of Oklahoma County that they were entitled to have their salaries increased to the extent of 90 percent of the $2,000 per annum allowed the County Attorney for his voluntary performance of the additional and non-germane duties required of him under the 1957 Act, supra, arguing that such additional amount constituted a part of the salary of the County Attorney. The Board of County Commissioners disagreed with this contention and refused to allow the increase contended for, and they appealed to the District Court of Oklahoma County where the action of the County Commissioners was affirmed, resulting in these appeals.

¶4 The County Attorney's official duties are set out in

¶5 For the reasons given herein, the judgment of the trial court affirming the action of the Board of County Commissioners is affirmed.

¶6 DAVISON, C.J., WILLIAMS, V.C.J., and WELCH, HALLEY, JACKSON and IRWIN, JJ., concur.

¶7 BLACKBIRD, J., dissents.