{ "id": 1678923, "name": "Aimer MARTINDALE, Jr. v. Charles L. HONEY", "name_abbreviation": "Martindale v. Honey", "decision_date": "1977-05-31", "docket_number": "76-410", "first_page": "708", "last_page": "710", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "261 Ark. 708" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "551 S.W.2d 202" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "255 Ark. 978", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8725918 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/255/0978-01" ] }, { "cite": "258 Ark. 450", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1621207 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/258/0450-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 Ark. 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1737879 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/237/0547-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 Ark. 325", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1737977 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/237/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 Ark. 416", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1619236 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/259/0416-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 283, "char_count": 3497, "ocr_confidence": 0.857, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.2908423268446333e-07, "percentile": 0.7862703578471177 }, "sha256": "ccd47ea51cb359f40da5769305af3e4cc192e57eb4bc70808f8253b27968205b", "simhash": "1:5bc49f7d390d9236", "word_count": 575 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:25.982646+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Hickman, J., concurs." ], "parties": [ "Aimer MARTINDALE, Jr. v. Charles L. HONEY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice.\nFollowing 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\u2019s affidavit showing 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. \u00a7 24-119 (Repl. 1962). Appellant without filing counter affidavits responded:\n\u201cThe defendant is not entitled to summary judgment because there are material issues of fact which the court must determine. These issues include:\n1. If the defendant\u2019s alleged good faith does constitute a defense to an accounting to plaintiff, the Court must decide the fact question whether the defendant acted in good faith and for what time period during his appointment as deputy prosecutor the defense is available.\u201d\nBased upon the record, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of appellee.\nFor reversal appellant here contends the trial court erred because Article 5 \u00a7 10 and Article 16 \u00a7 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:\n\u201cConcerning the prayer of appellants for an accounting by appellees of any funds unlawfully received by virtue of holding dual offices, there is nothing in the record to justify a finding that appellants have acted with any fraudulent intent, or that they have even appreciated the possibility of their holding illegal offices. Under the circumstances, those appellants should not be required to account for funds received for services rendered and expenses incurred as Members of the involved State Boards.\u201d\nMackey 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 \u00a7 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.\nOf course, to adopt the position of appellant here, the State, notwithstanding appellee\u2019s 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.\nAffirmed.\nHickman, J., concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "James E. Davis, for appellant.", "Charles L. Honey, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Aimer MARTINDALE, Jr. v. Charles L. HONEY\n76-410\n551 S.W. 2d 202\nOpinion delivered May 31, 1977\n(In Banc)\nJames E. Davis, for appellant.\nCharles L. Honey, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0708-01", "first_page_order": 748, "last_page_order": 750 }