the amount has been prescribed by law, it cannot be changed except in the manner in which originally determined or fixed 486 and it is not within the power of either the public corporation or the individual official to increase or decrease the compensation legally established; 487 agreements to such an effect being contrary to ple v. Goodykoontz, 22 Colo. 507, 45 Pac. 414; Castle v. Lawlor, 47 Conn. 340; Coughlin v. McElroy, 74 Conn. 397, 50 Atl. 1025; Merwin v. Boulder County Com'rs, 29 Colo. 169, 67 Pac. 285; State v. Bloxham, 26 Fla. 407, 7 So. 873; Stookey v. Nez Perces County Com'rs, 6 Idaho, 542, 57 Pac. 312; Dunbar v. Canyon County, 6 Idaho, 725, 59 Pac. 536; Taylor v. Canyon County, 7 Idaho, 171, 61 Pac. 521; Windmiller v. People, 78 Ill. App. 273; Cook County v. Hartney, 169 Ill. 566, 48 N. E. 458; Legler v. Paine, 147 Ind. 181, 45 N. E. 604; Harmon v. Madison County Com'rs, 153 Ind. 68, 54 N. E. 105; Sudbury v. Monroe County Com'rs, 157 Ind. 446, 62 N. E. 45; Holmes v. Lucas County, 53 Iowa, 211; Daniels v. City of Des Moines, 108 Iowa, 484, 79 N. W. 269; Darby V. Washington County Com'rs, 7 Kan. App. 235, 52 Pac. 902; City of Mayfield v. Elmore, 100 Ky. 417, 38 S. W. 849; Winston v. Stone, 102 Ky. 423, 43 S. W. 397; Barrett v. City of Falmouth, 109 Ky. 151, 58 S. W. 520; State v. Brittin, 52 La. Ann. 94, 26 So. 753; Edgecomb v. City of Lewiston, 71 Me. 343; Prince v. City of Boston, 148 Mass. 285, 19 N. E. 218; Warner V. Auditor General, 129 Mich. 648, 89 N. W. 591; Bates v. City of St. Louis, 153 Mo. 18, 54 S. W. 439. Under St. Louis charter, art. 4, § 17, no deduction is to be made from the mayor's salary for personal or private absences from duty. State v. Weston, 6 Neb. 16. An officer whose salary is prescribed by the constitution may be paid without legislative appropriation. Weston v. Herdman, 64 Neb. 24 89 N. W. 384; Powell v. Chosen Freeholders of Camden County, 59 N. J. Law, 117, 35 Atl. 755; People v., Hopkins, 55 N. Y. 74. Where by law a deputy officer is authorized in case of a vacancy to exercise the powers and perform the duties of an office, he is entitled to the salary of that office while acting in such capacity. Landis v. Lincoln County, 31 Or. 424, 50 Pac. 530; Lewis v. Lackawanna County, 200 Pa. 590, 50 Atl. 162; Finley v. Laurens County, 58 S. C. 273, 36 S. E. 588; Chandler v. Town of Johnson City, 105 Tenn. 633, 59 S. W. 142; State v. McFetridge, 84 Wis. 473, 54 N. W. 1, 20 L. R. A. 223, 998. Where an officer is given a salary "in full for all services rendered by him in his official capacity," he cannot retain fees incidental to the office. 486 Brissenden v. Clay County, 161 Ill. 216, 43 N. E. 977. The authority for fixing compensation may be vested in the county board of supervisors. Pease v. Common Council of Saginaw, 126 Mich. 436, 85 N. W. 1082; Hillman v. Hennepin County Com'rs, 84 Minn. 130, 86 N. W. 890. 487 Rice v. National City, 132 Cal. 354, 64 Pac. 580; Vail v. San Diego County, 126 Cal. 35, 58 Pac. 392; Power v. May, 114 Cal. 207, 46 Pac. 6; State v. Bloxham, 26 Fla. 407, 7 So. 873; City of Joliet v. Petty, 96 Ill. App. 450; Tracy v. Jackson public policy will not be enforced or given effect as an estoppel.488 The payment of a salary provided by law for the rendition of official services becomes a right which can be exercised against a delinquent corporation through proper remedies. 489 § 688. Commissions. In many cases, public officials, especially those having charge of the collection and disbursement of public moneys, receive their compensation through the payment of commissions fixed by law upon the amounts which they may either collect 490 or disburse 191 County, 115 Iowa, 254, 88 N. W. 362; Behan v. City of New Orleans, 34 La. Ann. 128; State v. Sullivan, 72 Minn. 126, 75 N. W. 8; State v. Nichols, 83 Minn. 3, 85 N. W. 717; Hayes County v. Christner, 61 Neb. 272, 85 N. W. 73; State v. Elko County Com'rs, 21 Nev. 19, 23 Pac. 935; State v. La Grave, 23 Nev. 120, 43 Pac. 470; State v. King (Tenn. Ch. App.) 62 S. W. 314. A salary which has been tentatively fixed may be subsequently diminished. Staples v. Llano County, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 201, 28 S. W. 569. When the amount of compensation is fixed at a maximum, an agreement or order is valid designating a less amount. Taylor v. City of Tacoma, 8 Wash. 174, 35 Pac. 584. Where a maximum compensation as salary is fixed by law, a less sum may be prescribed by ordinance as the full compensation or salary to be paid municipal officers. 488 United States v. Langston, 118 U. S. 389; Whiting v. United States, 35 Ct. Cl. 291; Miller v. United States, 103 Fed. 413; Tappan v. Brown, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 175; Kehn v. State, 93 N. Y. 291; Clark v. State, 142 N. Y. 101, 36 N. E. 817. 491 Morris v. Ocean Tp. 61 N. J. Law, 12, 38 Atl. 760; Merwine v. But a number of cases hold that the acceptance of compensation less than that fixed by law estops the officer from claiming the difference. See the following: Tice v. City of New Brunswick, 64 N. J. Law, 399, 45 Atl. 781; Hobbs v. City of Yonkers, 102 N. Y. 13, 5 N. E. 778; O'Hara v. Town of Park River, 1 N. D. 279, 47 N. W. 380; De Boest v. Gambell, 35 Or. 368, 58 Pac. 72, 353. 489 State v. Daggett, 28 Wash. 1, 68 Pac. 340. 490 Morgan County Com'rs v. Gregory, 74 Ind. 218; Bramlage v. Com., 24 Ky. L. R. 213, 68 S. W. 406; City of Hagerstown v. Startzman, 93 Md. 606, 49 Atl. 838. A collector is entitled to ordinary commissions on all assessments for street paving collected by him where his compensation is a certain percentage "of all taxes collected by him." Stone v. Casper (Miss.) 2 So. 74; Harrisson v. Police of Wilkinson County, 35 Miss. 74; Yazo & M. V. R. Co. v. Love, 69 Miss. 109, 12 So. 266; Adams v. Watt, 76 Miss. 667, 26 So. 364; State v. Ewing, 116 Mo. 129, 22 S. W. 476. The compensation provided for a collector of taxes is a commisson upon the total amount levied; not the amount actually col Monroe County, 141 Pa. 162, 21 Atl. 509. or the total amount handled.492 Their claim for compensation in lected. Otsego County Com'rs v. Hendryx, 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 279; Koonce v. Jones County Com'rs, 106 N. C. 192, 10 S. E. 1038; Centre County v. Gramley, 155 Pa. 325, 26 Atl. 654. A county treasurer paid by commissions on taxes "collected" is not entitled to commissions on sums collected by his predecessor and delivered to him upon his assuming office. 492 Shaver v. Sharp County, 62 Ark. 76, 34 S. W. 261; Lawrence County v. Hudson, 41 Ark. 494; Gray v. Matheny, 66 Ark. 36, 48 S. W. 678; City of Baxley v. Holton, 114 Ga. 724, 40 S. E. 728. An official charged by law with the responsibility of handling certain public moneys is entitled to the legal commissions thereon although such sums may have been actually disbursed by other officers. a People v. Long, 13 Ill. 629; Mason County v. Special Drainage Dist. Com'rs, 140 Ill. 539, 30 N. E. 676; Hunsaker v. Alexander County, 42 Ill. 389; Lagrange County Com'rs v. Newman, 35 Ind. 10; Pulaski County Com'rs v. Vurpillat, 22 Ind. App. 422, 53 N. E. 1049; Purdy v. City of Independence, 75 Iowa, 356, 39 N. W. 641. A city treasurer who receives for his compensation commission on disbursements and collections made by him, is entitled to recover the prescribed percentage on funds handled by him arising from the sale of municipal bonds issued for the erection of a system of waterworks. See, however, Stoner v. Keith County, 48 Neb. 279, 67 N. W. 311, holding to the contrary, based upon Nebraska Comp. St. 1889, c. 28, § 20. Hughston v. Carroll County Sup'rs, 68 Miss. 660, 10 So. 51; City of Aus tin v. Walton, 68 Tex. 507, 5 S. W. 70; Farmer v. Aransas County, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 549, 53 S. W. 607. The exchange of old bonds for a new issue is not the disbursement of money entitling a county treasurer to the commissions authorized by law for moneys handled. Baylor County v. Taylor, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 523, 22 S. W. 982, following McKinney v. Robinson, 84 Tex. 489. A county treasurer receiving his compensation through the pay. ment of commissions on public moneys handled by him is not entitled to such commissions on an issue of bonds delivered directly to contractors in payment for the building of a bridge. Waller County v. Rankin (Tex. Civ App.) 35 S. W. 876; Davenport v. Eastland County, 94 Tex. 277, 60 S. W. 243; Beard v. City of Decatur, 64 Tex. 7. The city treasurer is entitled to compensations for the disbursement of municipal funds and he cannot be deprived of this right through the placing of them in the hands of the mayor for payment. Presidio County v. Walker, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 609, 69 S. W. 97; Llano County v. Moore, 77 Tex. 515, 14 S. W. 152. The legality of bonds upon which a commission is claimed is not a question in issue in a proceeding brought to determine the right of the official to collect his commissions upon their proceeds. School Dist. No. 81 v. Cole, 4 Wash. 395, 30 Pac. 448; Pease v. Ter., 1 Wyo. 392. A county treasurer cannot collect his legal commission on the sum paid over by his successor; the statutory provision applies only to payments made by him in or dinary transactions of business in connection with the office. such a case is based upon the terms of the law,493 and though the established commission may be entirely inadequate for the payment of the services rendered, yet they are not entitled to extra compensation even though the inadequacy may arise because of a legal change in conditions which affect the volume of business transacted. The fact that the limits of a public corporation may have been diminished or other offices established which assume the performance of a portion of their duties will not affect the application of the rule. 689. Fees. Still another method for the payment of the compensation of public officials by the establishment of a system of fees 49 or per 493 Ter. v. Cavanaugh, 3 Dak. 325, 19 N. W. 413; Sandager v. Walsh County, 6 Dak. 31, 50 N. W. 196; Guheen v. Curtis, 3 Idaho, 443, 31 Pac. 805, construing Rev. St. §§ 1679, 2158. Cunningham v. Moody, 3 Idaho, 125, 28 Pac. 395, construing Idaho Const. art. 7, § 7. Saint v. Henry County Com'rs, 19 Ind. App. 281, 49 N. E. 384; Com. v. Norman, 20 Ky. L. R. 1893, 50 S. W. 225; Boltz v. City of Newport, 22 Ky. L. R. 961, 59 S. W. 503; Gerken v. Sibley County, 39 Minn. 433, 40 N. W. 508. Where a county treasurer has an annual salary which is intended as full compensation for his official services, he is not permitted to retain certain fees and percentages allowed for handling the proceeds of state revenues. Stoner v. Keith County, 48 Neb. 279, 67 N. W. 311; McKinney v. Robinson, 84 Tex. 489, 19 S. W. 699. 494 The Antonio Zambrana, 88 Fed. 546; Tillman v. Wood, 58 Ala. 578. "Fees are compensation paid officers for services rendered to individuals while costs are an allowance to a party incidental to a judgment." Leonard V. Garfield County Com'rs, 8 Colo. App. 338, 46 Pac. 216; Arapahoe County Com'rs v. Hall, 9 Colo. App. 538, 49 Pac. 370; Wulff v. Aldrich, 124 Ill. 591, 16 N. E. 886, construing and holding unconstitutional Rev. St. Ill. c. 53, § 39, as violating Ill. Const. art. 10, § 10; City of Des Moines v. Polk County, 107 Iowa, 525, 78 N. W. 249; Lowe v. Bourbon County Com'rs, 6 Kan. App. 603, 51 Pac. 579; State v. Obert, 53 Kan. 106, 36 Pac. 64; Kenefick v. City of St. Louis, 127 Mo. 1, 29 S. W. 838; Kemp v. City of Monett, 95 Mo. App. 452, 69 S. W. 31; Wight v. Meagher County Com'rs, 16 Mont. 479, 41 Pac. 271. Under Comp. St. 1887, Div. 5, § 900, providing a per diem for the county surveyor, he is not entitled to an allowance for expenses, none being provided by the statute. Ghiglione v. Marsh, 23 App. Div. 61, 48 N. Y. Supp. 604; People v. Town Auditors of Queensbury, 24 App. Div. 579, 49 N. Y. Supp. 525; Willis v. Angell, 19 R. I. 617; Nance V. Anderson County, 60 S. C. 501, 39 S. E. 5; Ellis County v. Thompson, 95 Tex. 22, 64 S. W. 927, modified by rehearing in 66 S. W. 48. Henry v. Tilson, 17 Vt. 479. Public officers diem charges 495 the law prescribing the payment of a specific amount for the performance of a designated service, the fee thus provided being paid as may be directed either by the public cor performing services for which no fee is especially allowed by statute are entitled to charge for such a proportionate sum based upon the fees established by law. Population as basis of classification. Darcy v. City of San Jose, 104 Cal. 642, 38 Pac. 500. Construing act March 23, 1893, and holding it unconstitutional as violating constitution, art. 4, § 25, subd. 29, prohibiting the passage of local legislation affecting the salaries of public officials. Dwyer v. Parker, 115 Cal. 544, 47 Pac. 372; Rauer v. Williams, 118 Cal. 401, 50 Pac. 691. Cal. St. 1893, p. 127, relative to the manner of receiving and paying fees for official services in cities and counties having a population of over 100,000 inhabitants is unconstitutional, being special legislation. Davis v. Post, 125 Cal. 210; Hall v. Beveridge, 81 Ill. 128; Legler v. Paine, 147 Ind. 181, 45 N. E. 604; Parker v. Wayne County Com'rs, 84 Ind. 340; Stout v. Grant County Com'rs, 107 Ind. 343; Bamble v. Marion County, 85 Iowa, 675, 52 N. W. 556, following Harris v. Chickasaw County, 77 Iowa, 345. Jefferson County Com'rs v. McCleary, 13 Kan. 149; Turner v. Neosho County Com'rs, 27 Kan. 639; Stone v. Wilson, 19 Ky. L. R. 126, 39 S. W. 49; City of Lexington v. Rennick, 20 Ky. L. R. 1924, 50 S. W. 1106; White v. Manistee County, 105 Mich. 608; Bowe v. City of St. Paul, 70 Minn. 341, 73 N. W. 184; King v. Texas County, 146 Mo. 60, 47 S. W. 920; Henderson v. Koenig, 168 Mo. 356, 68 S. W. 72, 57 L. R. A. 659; Bedwell v. Custer County, 51 Neb. 387, 70 N. W. 945; State v. Frank, 60 Neb. 327, 83 N. W. 74; Martin v. Ivins, 59 N. J. Law, 364, 36 Atl. 93; State v. Storey County Com'rs, 16 Nev. 92; Stack v. City Y. 335; Hart of Brooklyn, 150 N. v. Murray, 48 Ohio St. 605, 29 N. E. 576; City of Philadelphia v. Martin, 125 Pa. 583, 17 Atl. 507; Com. v. Comrey, 149 Pa. 216, 24 Atl. 172; Bell v. Allegheny County, 149 Pa. 381, 24 Atl. 209; Com. v. Mann, 168 Pa. 290, 31 Atl. 1003; Schuylkill County v. Pepper, 182 Pa. 13, 37 Atl. 835; City of Pittsburg v. Anderson, 194 Pa. 172, 44 Atl. 1092; Minnehaha County v. Thorne, 6 S. D. 449, 61 N. W. 688; Clark v. Finley, 93 Tex. 171, 54 S. W. 343; State v. Neal, 25 Wash. 264, 65 Pac. 188, 68 Pac. 1135; O'Herrin v. Milwaukee County, 67 Wis. 142. Volume of business. Lemoine v. City of St. Louis, 72 Mo. 404; Allen v. Com., 83 Va. 94, 1 S. E. 607. Value of property. City of Denver v. Hart, 10 Colo. App. 452, 51 Pac. 533; Hiner v. Miami County Com'rs, 9 Kan. App. 542; Mower County v. Williams, 27 Minn. 25; Doe V. Washington County, 30 Minn. 392; Cook County Com'rs v. Fisher, 79 Minn. 380, 82 N. W. 652; Bunn v. Kingsbury County, 3 S. D. 87, 52 N. W. 673; Wilbarger County Com'rs v. Perkins, 86 Tex. 348, 24 S. W. 794; Converse County Com'rs v. Burns, 3 Wyo. 691, 29 Pac. 894, 30 Pac. 415. 495 Ellis v. Tulare County (Cal.) 44 Pac. 575; Chapin v. Wilcox, 114 Cal. 498, 46 Pac. 457. Where a maximum compensation is provided, |