Title: Martindale v. Honey
Citation: 551 S.W.2d 202
Docket Number: 76-410
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: May 31, 1977

551 S.W.2d 202 (1977) Aimer MARTINDALE, Jr., Appellant, v. Charles L. HONEY, Appellee. No. 76-410. Supreme Court of Arkansas, In Banc. May 31, 1977. James E. Davis, Texarkana, for appellant. Charles L. Honey, Prescott, for appellee. BYRD, Justice. Following our decision in Martindale v. Honey, 259 Ark. 416, 533 S.W.2d 198 (1976) appellee Charles L. Honey moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether he should account for the funds he received in his capacity as deputy prosecuting attorney. Attached to the motion for summary judgment was the appellee's affidavit showing *203 that in accepting the funds he had in good faith performed the duties of the office by and with the consent of the Nevada County Circuit Court in accordance with Ark.Stat. Ann. § 24-119 (Repl.1962). Appellant without filing counter affidavits responded: Based upon the record, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of appellee. For reversal appellant here contends the trial court erred because Article 5 § 10 and Article 16 § 13 of the Constitution of Arkansas prohibits a member of the General Assembly from exercising the power or receiving the remuneration of other state offices while he is a member of the General Assembly. In making these contentions, appellant recognizes that we have held to the contrary in Starnes v. Sadler, 237 Ark. 325, 372 S.W.2d 585 (1963) and Berry v. Gordon, 237 Ark. 547, 376 S.W.2d 279 (1964), but contends that they have been overruled by Tedford v. Mears, 258 Ark. 450, 526 S.W.2d 1 (1975) and Mackey v. McDonald, 255 Ark. 978, 504 S.W.2d 726 (1974). We adhere to the position stated in Starnes v. Sadler, supra, as follows: Mackey v. McDonald, supra, involved an action to prevent the future illegal expenditure of federal revenue sharing funds and did not involve a reimbursement of funds expended in good faith. Neither can appellant find any relief in Tedford v. Mears, supra, which involved a specific constitutional prohibition against an officer receiving emoluments of his office in excess of a stated sum per annum. Here the constitutional prohibition involved only Article 5 § 10 prohibiting a member of the General Assembly from being appointed or elected to any civil office during the term for which he was elected. Of course, to adopt the position of appellant here, the State, notwithstanding appellee's good faith performance, would be in the position of accepting a windfall. Such a construction should not be given to a constitutional prohibition unless the context thereof clearly indicates that such a penalty should be exacted. Affirmed. HICKMAN, J., concurs.