Maryland case law › County Commissioners v. Goodman

County Commissioners v. Goodman

172 Md. 559 (1937) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedSloan, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThe administrators of Theodore A.

Sloan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. , This appeal is from a judgment in favor of Albert J. Goodman and Walter Brady, administrators of Theodore A. Brady, deceased, against the County Commissioners of Anne Arundel County for $458.26, which had been deducted from the salary of Theodore A. Brady, who had been the state’s attorney for Anne Arundel County. Theodore A. Brady was elected state’s attorney for Anne Arundel County at the election held in November, 1930, for the years 1931 to 1934, both inclusive, at a salary fixed by Code, Pub. Loc. Laws, art. 2, sec. 470 (Acts 1927, ch. 26) at $2,500 a year, payable monthly. 561 From the time of his qualification, he was paid the sum of $208.83 until the 1st day of September, 1932, when by order of the County Commissioners of Anne Arundel his salary was cut or reduced to $2,250, and he was thereafter paid the sum of $187.50 a month until the last day of June, 1984.

He protested against the reduction, but accepted checks for the reduced amount for twenty-two months, when the statutory pay was resumed. Shortly after the expiration of his term of office Mr. Brady died, and his administrators sued for the deficiency ]n his salary payments. A provision of the Constitution of Maryland, which binds both the state’s attorney for, and the County Commissioners of, Anne Arundel County, is section 35, article 3, which reads: “No extra compensation shall be granted or allowed by the General Assembly to any public Officer, Agent, Servant or Contractor, after the service shall have been rendered, or the contract entered into; nor shall the salary or compensation of any public officer be Increased or diminished during his term of office.” It is not argued or pretended by the appellants, County Commissioners, that they had any authority to make the reduction. 4-6 C. J. 1020, sec. 258. Recently, in the case of Calvert County v. Monnett, 164 Md. 101 , 164 A. 155 , where the Legislature had reduced the compensation of a county treasurer, after his election and qualification, this court held that the act was ineffective against him, though it would affect his successor.

How then could it be said that the County Commissioners had power in the premises, superior to the Legislature, to override a provision of the Constitution? Generally it has been held that any agreement of a public officer to accept less than his statutory

This is a preview of County Commissioners v. Goodman. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.