Starnes v. Sadler
| Decision Date | 02 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-3044,5-3044 |
| Citation | 237 Ark. 325,372 S.W.2d 585 |
| Parties | Kenneth STARNES et al., Appellants, v. Loyd SADLER et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Macom & Moorhead, Stuttgart, Garner, Shaw & Kimbrough, Ft. Smith, for appellants.
Chambers & Chambers, Magnolia, Catlett & Henderson, Little Rock, for appellees.
APPELLANTS are citizens and taxpayers of the State of Arkansas. Appellee Loyd Sadler is a Member of the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas and, also, is a Member of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles. Appellee Van Mosley is a Member of the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas and, also, is a Member of the Board of Southern State College--a State supported institution. Appellants petitioned the Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, under Article XVI, Section 13, of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, to enjoin each Appellee from holding one or the other state office, and for an accounting of any funds unlawfully received by virtue of holding dual state offices. Appellants and appellees moved for a Summary Judgment in the case, and the Chancellor entered a Decree granting Appellees' Motion for Summary Judgment, ruling that the Chancery Court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine this cause--and, thus, this appeal.
By Separate Answer to the Complaint and Reply to Request for Admissions, Appellee Van Mosley alleged that he had received no pay for services or reimbursement of expenses incurred as a Member of the Board of Southern State College. Whether Appellee Loyd Sadler has received pay for services or reimbursement of expenses as a Member of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles is not revealed.
Article V, Section 10, of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, reads 'No Senator or Representative shall, during the term for which he shall have been elected, be appointed or elected to any civil office under this State.' This Constitutional provision clearly precludes Appellee Loyd Sadler from serving as a Member of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles during the term for which he has been elected to serve as a Member of the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas, and clearly precludes Appellee Van Mosley from serving as a Member of the Board of Southern State College during the term he has been elected to serve as a Member of the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas; Wood v. Miller, 154 Ark. 318, 242 S.W. 573; Collins v. McClendon, 177 Ark. 44, 5 S.W.2d 734; Fulkerson v. Refunding Board of Arkansas, 201 Ark. 957, 147 S.W.2d 980, 981, Smith v. Faubus, 230 Ark. 831, 327 S.W.2d 562; Jones v. Duckett, 234 Ark. 960, 356 S.W.2d 5.
Appellee Loyd Sadler is an illegal Member of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, and Appellee Van Mosley is an illegal Member of the Board of Southern State College.
Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas specifically provides that the powers of our state government shall be divided into three departments--legislative, executive, and judicial--and provides that no person, or collection of persons within one of these departments shall exercise any power in either of the other departments.
The most controverted issue in this case is whether the Chancery Court had jurisdiction to determine this cause. This Court holds that the Chancery Court did have jurisdiction of this cause, and that the Chancellor erroneously ruled to the contrary.
Article XVI, Section 13, of the Constitution of Arkansas reads, 'Any citizen of any county, city or town may institute suit in behalf of himself and all others interested, to protect the inhabitants thereof against the enforcement of any illegal exactions whatever.' The Chancery Court has jurisdiction of suits to prevent illegal exactions; and, therefore, Chancery Court has jurisdiction of this suit for Declaratory Judgment--the equity court does not lose jurisdiction by the holder of a civil office electing to perform the duties of the office without pay for services or reimbursement of expenses incurred.
Ark.Stat. § 7-202 charges Members of State Boards with the management and control of the respective institutions of the State of Arkansas, affording the Members the necessary power and authority to operate the Boards in a businesslike manner, and directs the Members to take over all records, files, books, papers, furniture, fixtures, and contracts of the institutions.
Ark.Stat. § 7-206 directs the Board Members to meet, organize, elect officers, and transact business on behalf of the institutions; and further provides that the Members of the Boards shall be entitled to the actual expenses which they incurred in attending meetings. Other legislative statutes detail the powers, duties, and responsibilities of Members of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles and Members of other Boards of the various State institutions.
The Members of the State Boards have access to, and supervision over, considerable property, assets and funds belonging to the people of the State of Arkansas, accumulated through taxation. For illegal Members of such State Boards to be entitled to expenses in attending to such state business, in receiving expenses, or in being afforded authority to operate State institutions, constitutes an illegal exaction; and, therefore, any citizen of any county, city or town may, by virtue of Article XVI, Section 13, of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, institute suit on behalf of himself and all other interested persons to protect the inhabitants of Arkansas against the enforcement of the illegal exactions.
This Chancery Court action was instituted pursuant to Article XVI, Section 13, of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, and the Chancery Court had jurisdiction of this Constitutional proceeding. This Constitutional provision is self-executing, and imposes no terms or conditions upon the right of the citizens there conferred. Samples v. Grady, 207 Ark. 724, 182 S.W.2d 875; 8 Ark.Law Review 129 (1954).
'Illegal Exaction' under the Arkansas Constitution means both direct and indirect illegal exactions, thus comprehending any attempted invalid spending or expenditure by any government official, Quinn v. Reed, 130 Ark. 116, 197 S.W. 15; Farrell v. Oliver, 146 Ark. 599, 226 S.W. 529.
'Illegal Exaction means far more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper v. Henslee
...Rose v. Brickhouse, 182 Ark. 1105, 34 S.W.2d 472 (1931); Sitton v. Burnett, 216 Ark. 574, 226 S.W.2d 544 (1950); Starnes v. Sadler, 237 Ark. 325, 372 S.W.2d 585 (1963); Nelson v. Berry Petroleum Co., 242 Ark. 273, 413 S.W.2d 46 It should be kept in mind that while the trial court found Sect......
-
Parsons v. Preferred Family Healthcare, Inc.
...stated,This is a broad provision of our Constitution, and has been utilized in various types of actions. The case of Starnes v. Sadler , 237 Ark. 325, 372 S.W.2d 585 [(1963)], contains a comprehensive discussion of the meaning of the term, ‘Illegal Exaction.’ There, we said:This Chancery Co......
-
McGhee v. Arkansas State Bd. of Collection
...320 Ark. 547, 898 S.W.2d 43 (1995); Martin v. Couey Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 308 Ark. 325, 824 S.W.2d 832 (1992); Starnes v. Sadler, 237 Ark. 325, 372 S.W.2d 585 (1963). Second, the dissent's proposed application of the exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies doctrine, if adopted by this cour......
-
Nelson v. Berry Petroleum Co.
...whatever.' This is a broad provision of our Constitution, and has been utilized in various types of actions. The case of Starnes v. Sadler, 237 Ark. 325, 372 S.W.2d 585, contains a comprehensive discussion of the meaning of the term, 'Illegal Exaction.' There, we 'This Chancery Court actiio......