delivered the opinion of the Court.
, This appeal is from a judgment in favor of Albert J. Goodman and Walter Brady, аdministrators of Theodore A. Brady, deceased, against the County Commissiоners 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 аt 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 salаry was cut or reduced to $2,250, and he was thereafter paid the sum of $187.50 а month until the last day of June, 1984. He protested against the reduction, but accepted checks for the reduced amount for twenty-two months, whеn 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 рayments.
A provision of the Constitution of Maryland, which binds both the state’s attоrney for, and the County Commissioners of, Anne Arundel County, is section 35, article 3, whiсh reads: “No extra compensation shall be granted or allowed by the General Assembly to any public Officer, Agent, Servant or Contractоr, 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 аrgued or pretended by the appellants, County Commissioners, that they hаd any authority to make the reduction. 4-6
C. J.
1020, sec. 258. Recently, in the case of
Calvert County v. Monnett,
The only dеfense made by the appellants is that Mr: Brady, by his acceptance of the reduced pay for twenty-two months, waived the deficiency, and that his administrators are now estopped! from asserting their claim, and they cite five cases in support of their contention, but they •аre so opposed to the weight of authority, and the letter and sрirit of our Constitution, that we decline to follow or be persuaded by thеm. The appellees cite a case to the effect thаt a deduction was warranted by an assignment of an officer for a specified time, to avoid the laying off of a number of police officers
[State, ex rel. Pike v. Bellingham,
It has been held in many cases that the acceptance of a lesser sum than the statutory salary does not estop an official from asserting a claim for his full salary.
Adams v. United States,
The contеntion here made by the appellants was raised by their third and fourth plеas, to which the appellees demurred, and the demurrers sustained, and by the appellants’ prayer for a directed verdict, which was refused. In our opinion, for the reasons stated, the trial court was right in both rulings.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.