holding that the Indiana Constitution’s separation-of-powers provision prohibited legislators “employed in the administrative department of government” from receiving salaries for those jobs
How later courts described this case
- holding that the Indiana Constitution’s separation-of-powers provision prohibited legislators “employed in the administrative department of government” from receiving salaries for those jobs
- provision with language similar to that discussed inMonaghan prohibits legislators from holding various state employments under state commissions
- legislators could not serve as secretary or director of state agency, or superintendent or inspector of commission
- legislator may not perform "functions" of another department of government
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
O’Malley, J.
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion, but believe that something should be added.
Under the majority holding this court does not attempt to disturb prior, holdings based on the doctrine of stare decisis. If the appellants performed services for the State of Indiana under a contract of employment, which contract was not in violation of Section 1 of Article 3, as that instrument was construed in the case of
Branham
v.
Lange, Auditor, etc.
(1861), 16 Ind. 497 , then the construction placed on that section of the Constitution of Indiana by the majority opinion in this case, could not be held to impair such contractual rights.
Swank et al.
v.
Tyndall et al.
(1948),
ante
204, 78 N. E. 2d 535 .
In the above case this court held that “a decision overruling a prior decision as to the construction of a statute is retroactive to the time of the enactment of the statute.” It is also held that the same rule applies to the construction of constitutions. It likewise was held in the Swank case,
supra,
that a change in the construction of a statute or of the constitution could not impair vested rights which rest on contract.
*467
In the instant case, it could not be held that rights protected by the above rule, could be enforced by means of mandate.
Note.—Concurring Opinion reported in 80 N. E. 2d 303 .