Court Opinion

ID: 9516168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:36:05.219402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:43.342135
License: Public Domain

T. E. Brennan, J.
(dissenting). My Brother’s opinion comes to a very novel conclusion. It holds that a public officer might be obligated to return part of his salary to the state, upon the complaint of a private citizen, alleging failure to perform a duty of the office. It cites no authority for this proposition. We can find no other case where it has ever been done or even claimed.
The general rule of law, of course, is that a voluntary payment of any kind cannot be recovered by the payor in the absence of fraud, mistake, or similar grounds.
Even in case of the impeachment of a public officer, judgment of conviction may not extend further than removal from office. Const 1963, art 11, §7.
The policy considerations which argue against creating the kind of action my Brother would invent in this cause are almost too numerous to mention.
Public officers will be required to spend substantial time, energy, and expense to defend against frivolous and politically motivated salary-refund cases.
No wage earner, nor person of ordinary means, *589would be able to risk acceptance of public office, since he or she would be unable to secure the repayment of compensation to the state.
The courts would be enmeshed in political name-calling and obligated to hear "on the merits” every claim of malfeasance, nonfeasance, misfeasance, or just plain dissatisfaction with the efforts of public officers.
I must dissent against the continued persecution of this defendant. He no longer holds the office from which this action sought to oust him.
The matter is moot.
Black, J., did not sit in this case.