Tbis is one of tbe cases that was here at tbe Spring Term, 1942, on motion to strike portions of the pleadings, reported in 221 N. C., 339, 20 S. E. (2d), 308.
I. The ActioN Against the COMMISSIONERS.
Tbe case as made out against tbe individual members of tbe board of county commissioners is wanting in sufficiency to show that they acted in bad faith, corruptly, or from motives of malice. Hence, on authority and under tbe express provisions of C. S., 3206, tbe judgment of nonsuit as to them must be sustained. Old Fort v. Harmon, 219 N. C., 245, 13 S. E. (2d), 426; Moore v. Lambeth, 207 N. C., 23, 175 S. E., 714.
II. The Action Against the Treasurer.
Tbe action against tbe treasurer stands on a different footing from the one against tbe commissioners. He received tbe money.
It is to be observed imprimis that no new office was created when tbe commissioners, or tbe governing body of tbe county, pursuant to tbe provisions of tbe Machinery Act, cb. 428, sec. 805 (8), Public Laws 1931, designated tbe county treasurer as receiver of tax prepayments, or “Prepaid Tax Collector” as be is spoken of in tbe record. Otherwise tbe constitutional provision in respect of double office-bolding might call for some attention. Brigman v. Baley, 213 N. C., 119, 195 S. E., 617. All that was done, and all that tbe commissioners were authorized to do, was to designate, from among tbe officers named in tbe statute, the one to *195receive tbe tax prepayments. Freeman v. Comrs. of Madison, 217 N. C., 209, 7 S. E. (2d), 354. True, tbis added new duties to tbe office of tbe one designated, but no additional compensation was authorized to be paid tberefor. Comrs. v. Credle, 182 N. C., 442, 109 S. E., 88; Borden v. Goldsboro, 173 N. C., 661, 92 S. E., 694.
Tbe general rule is, that where tbe duties of an officer have been increased by tbe addition of other duties germane to bis office, in tbe absence of legislation authorizing an increase in bis salary, such additional duties are to be performed without extra compensation. U. S. v. King, 147 U. S., 676; Anno. L. R. A., 1918 E. 761. In other words, extra compensation is not ordinarily allowed to officers for extra work, without legislative sanction. Hoyt v. U. S., 13 U. S., 10 How., 109. See Comrs. v. Davis, 182 N. C., 140, 108 S. E., 506, where legislative authority for increasing compensation was implied. It is to be noted, however, that tbe rule does not extend to services rendered in an independent employment, not incidental to the duties of tbe office, such as might have been performed by some other person. Converse v. U. S., 62 U. S., 21 How., 463; Detroit v. Redfield, 19 Mich., 376.
The compensation for official services is fixed by law. In some cases it may be extravagant; in others wholly inadequate. 43 Am. Jur., 150. It is not a matter of assumpsit or quantum meruit. Deed v. Madison County, 213 N. C., 145, 195 S. E., 620; Osborne v. Canton, 219 N. C., 139, 13 S. E. (2d), 265. Then, too, the work may become onerous from changed conditions or increased duties, but nothing in addition to the statutory reward may be claimed by the officer, however disproportionate to the value of his services it may be or may become. In such case he must content himself with the salary and fees allowed by law, and look to the bounty of the General Assembly for any additional remuneration. One who takes a public office is deemed to hold it cum onere. 37 Am. Jur., 879; 43 C. J., 691; McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, Yol. 2, sec. 544; Dillon on Municipal Corporations, Vol. I, 731; Borden v. Goldsboro, supra.
“It is a well settled rule, that a person accepting a public office with a fixed salary, is bound to perform the duties of the office for the salary. He cannot legally claim additional compensation for the discharge of these duties, even though the salary may be a very inadequate remuneration for the services. Nor does it alter the case that by subsequent statutes or ordinances his duties are increased and not his salary. His undertaking is to perform the duties of his office whatever they may be from time to time during his continuance in office for the compensation stipulated — whether these duties are diminished or increased. Whenever he considers the compensation inadequate, he is at liberty to resign”— Potts, J., in Evans v. City of Trenton, 24 N. J. S., 764.
*196Tbe salary of tbe treasurer of Guilford County was increased by tbe General Assembly of 1943, Senate Bill 57 (Laws not yet published), but tbe act providing for tbe increase does not purport to validate tbe excessive payments heretofore made or to affect tbe amounts here in suit.
It follows, therefore, that tbe additional amounts paid to tbe treasurer, over and above bis salary of $1,800 a year as fixed by law, constitutes overpayments to which be is not entitled. Carolina Beach v. Mintz, 212 N. C., 578, 194 S. E., 309.
On appeal in respect of tbe commissioners, Affirmed.
On appeal in respect of tbe treasurer, Reversed.