State ex rel. Lambert v. Flynn

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Citation154 S.W.2d 52,348 Mo. 525
Docket Number37495
PartiesState of Missouri at the Relation of Albert Bond Lambert, Louis Nolte, John J. Nangle, John H. Glassco, Edward R. Handlan, James J. Moran and Harry J. Powell, members of and constituting the Board of Trustees of the Police Retirement System of the City of St. Louis, Relators, v. William B. Flynn, Judge of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Presiding in Division No. 1 thereof
Decision Date22 August 1941

Rehearing Denied September 25, 1941.

Provisional rule made absolute.

Joseph F. Holland, Francis Finley and Carl R O'Connor for relators.

(1) The "general administration and responsibility for the proper operation" of the Police Retirement System of the City of St. Louis is "vested in the board of trustees," which board has the power and authority to determine the validity of claims for benefits provided by the laws creating the Police Retirement System. R. S. 1929, secs 8906-8918, R. S. 1939, secs. 9464-9476; State ex rel. Lambert v. Padberg, 145 S.W.2d 123; State ex rel. v. Baker, 293 S.W. 399, 316 Mo. 853; Huntsville Trust Co. v. Noel, 12 S.W.2d 751, 321 Mo. 749; In re Bernays' Estate, 126 S.W.2d 209, 344 Mo. 135; Helms v. Alabama Pension Comm., 163 So. 807, 231 Ala. 183; State ex rel. Lambert v. O'Malley, 121 S.W.2d 228. (2) Relators do not have jurisdiction to hear a claim nor to pay a claim for accidental benefits until all statutory conditions precedent have been complied with, including the requirement that application must be made by a member of the Board of Police Commissioners. R. S. 1929, sec. 8911, R. S. 1939, sec. 9469; State ex rel. Lambert v. Padberg, 145 S.W.2d 123; Streib v. Local Lodge, 40 S.W.2d 519. (3) Benefits afforded under the Police Retirement System are governed by statute and are not founded upon a contractual relationship. Whether the facts in a particular case justify the payment of accidental benefits is a matter for the determination of the relators in the first instance. King v. Board of Trustees, 184 S.W. 929, 192 Mo.App. 583, 54 A. L. R. 943; State ex rel. Lambert v. O'Malley, 121 S.W.2d 228, 234 Mo.App. 773; State ex rel. Lambert v. Padberg, 145 S.W.2d 123. (4) The board of trustees, being vested with the power and authority to administer the funds provided by statute and vested with authority to determine the validity of claims for benefits, the respondent has exceeded his powers and jurisdiction in sustaining the motion to quash the hearing to be held by the relators and in assuming jurisdiction in the cause pending in the circuit court, and unless prohibited will continue to exceed his jurisdiction. Cases under Point (1); Federal Power Comm. v. Metropolitan-Edison Co., 304 U.S. 375, 82 L.Ed. 1408; State ex rel. Bigham v. Williams, 250 S.W. 44, 297 Mo. 607; Glencoe Lime & Cement Co. v. St. Louis, 108 S.W.2d 143, 341 Mo. 689.

M. J. Hart and J. P. Griffin for respondent.

(1) Relators refused to hear the claim of Meehan before he brought suit in the circuit court; therefore the respondent acquired jurisdiction, and they could not defeat it by changing their mind and offering to hear the claim after the suit was instituted, the pleadings made up and the cause set for trial, by voluntarily, without request from Meehan, hearing the case in which they are defendants. State ex rel. Lambert v. Padberg, 145 S.W.2d 123; McMahon v. Supreme Tent, etc., 151 Mo. 522, 52 S.W. 384; Shaw v. American Ins. Union, 33 S.W.2d 1052; Roberson v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 233 Mo.App. 159, 114 S.W.2d 136, certiorari quashed 343 Mo. 666, 123 S.W.2d 1. (a) The circuit court, in which Meehan's case is pending, is a court of general jurisdiction, and jurisdiction of the person and subject matter is presumed, and the burden is on the relators to show want of jurisdiction. McClanahan v. West, 100 Mo. 309, 13 S.W. 674; State v. Baker, 246 Mo. 357, 152 S.W. 46. (2) Relators waived any question of jurisdiction by filing an answer which is only a general denial after their demurrer was overruled, and not attacking the jurisdiction. Joe Dan Market, Inc., v. Wentz, 13 S.W.2d 641; Hendricks v. Callaway, 211 Mo. 536, 111 S.W. 60. (a) This is jurisdiction of the person because jurisdiction of the subject matter cannot be conferred. United Cemeteries v. Strother, 342 Mo. 1155, 119 S.W.2d 762; Robinson v. Field, 342 Mo. 778, 117 S.W.2d 308.

OPINION

Ellison, J.

Original proceeding in prohibition. The relators are the members of the Board of Trustees of the Police Retirement Pension System of the City of St. Louis. Respondent is a circuit judge in whose court is pending a suit brought against relators by William Edward Meehan, a former member of the police force of said city, for monthly installments of an accidental disability retirement allowance claimed to be due him under Sec. 9469(5) and (6), R. S. 1939, Sec. 8911, Mo. Stat. Ann., p. 6264. Relators contend respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction in said suit by attempting to quash a hearing before them on the same claim. Respondent filed a return asserting he had acquired jurisdiction of the cause because relators wrongfully failed and refused to entertain Meehan's claim until after the suit thereon had been brought in his court and the issues made up.

Relators have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Therefore all facts well pleaded in relators' petition and not controverted by the return will be accepted as true, State ex rel. Cytron v. Kirkwood, 340 Mo. 185, 189(1), 100 S.W.2d 450, 451(1). But averments of the return controverting the petition or alleging new matter, also will be taken as true. [State ex rel. Warde v. McQuillin, 262 Mo. 256, 260, 171 S.W. 72.]

The Police Retirement Pension System was established in cities of 500,000 inhabitants by Laws Mo. 1929, p. 300, and began operation as of October 1, 1929. The system and all its funds are under the management of relators as said board of trustees. The funds are raised by assessed contributions from the members and the city, and from interest on investments. The board of trustees consists of seven persons: the president of the board of police commissioners, ex officio; the city comptroller; two members appointed by the mayor; and three elected by the members of the retirement system. [Sec. 9468, R. S. 1939, Sec. 8910, Mo. Stat. Ann., p. 6261.] The board of police commissioners, just mentioned, whose president is a member ex officio of said board of trustees, is a separate body in charge of the police force, and having four members appointed by the Governor, who serve with the mayor. [Secs. 7689, 7690, R. S. 1939, Secs. 7541, 7542, Mo. Stat. Ann., pp. 5986, 5988.] This fact should be remembered.

With respect to the administration of said retirement pension system, prior to November 1, 1939, Sec. 8910(6), R. S. 1929, Mo. Stat. Ann., [348 Mo. 528] p. 6262, merely authorized the board of trustees generally to "establish rules and regulations for the administration of funds created by this article and for the transaction of its business." But said subsection (6) was stricken out and a new one substituted by Laws Mo. 1939, p. 619, approved June 12, effective November 1, 1939 (now Sec. 9468(6), supra, Sec. 8910(6), Mo. Stat. Ann., p. 6261, pocket part) giving the board of trustees "exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to or affecting the funds herein provided for, including . . . all claims for annuities, benefits, refunds or pensions under this Act, . . ." The new section also makes the board's determination of any matter reviewable only by certiorari, and allows an appeal from the reviewing court.

Section 9469, R. S. 1939(3), Sec. 8911, Mo. Stat. Ann., p. 6264, covering the allowance of benefits under the system, provides (italics ours) that ordinary disability retirement benefits shall be made (or not) "upon the application of a member in service or of the board of police commissioners," etc. But under subsection (5) of said Sec. 9469, accidental disability benefits shall be granted (or not) and the officer retired "upon application of a member of the board of police commissioners." Thus it will be seen, a proceeding before relators for accidental disability benefits, unlike one for ordinary benefits, cannot be instituted by the claimant, himself, but must be initiated by a member of the separate board of police commissioners. There is good reason for this last requirement, where the claim is for accidental disability benefits. The board of police commissioners are in direct charge of the police and in a better position to know or find out the facts with respect to the accident and the character of the claimant. The circumstance that the president of the board of police commissioners is a member ex officio of the board of trustees does not dispense with the requirement that a member of the former board initiate the proceeding, though, of course, we do not mean to say they determine it.

The subsection further exacts a proper showing that the claimant has become "totally and permanently incapacitated for duty as the natural and proximate result of an accident occurring while in the actual performance of duty at some definite time and place through no negligence on his part." Also the Medical Board must certify "that such member is mentally or physically incapacitated for further performance of duty, that such incapacity is likely to be permanent, and that such member should be retired." The reason for this requirement is doubtless akin to that stated in the last paragraph.

Meehan joined the force in February, 1930. He claimed to have been permanently and totally incapacitated for duty as the natural and proximate result of an accident while in the actual performance of duty in April, 1931. Thereafter he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Missouri Soybean v. Missouri Clean Water
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 22, 2003
    ......) to include the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers (Rivers) on the State's 1998 impaired waters list that is submitted to the Environmental ...3 See generally EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U.S. 200, 202-3, 96 S.Ct. 2022, ... State ex rel. Lambert v. Flynn, 348 Mo. 525, 154 S.W.2d 52, 57 (banc 1941). Subject-matter ......
  • Ebeling v. Fred J. Swaine Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 8, 1948
    ...... subject matter. State v. Evans, 176 Mo. 310, 75 S.W. 914; Benton County v. Morgan, 163 Mo. 661, ...Neff, 325 Mo. 1182, 30. S.W.2d 616; State ex rel. Lambert v. Flynn, 348 Mo. 525, 154 S.W.2d 52. (4) The respondent's ......
  • State ex rel. Muth v. Buzard
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 10, 1947
    ......Beasley, 54 N.E. 185;. Sharp v. Sharp, 72 N.E. 1058; Braeuel v. Reuther, 270 Mo. 603, 193 S.W. 283; State ex rel. v. Flynn, 348 Mo. 525, 154 S.W.2d 52; United Cemeteries. v. Strother, 342 Mo. 1155, 119 S.W. 762; State v. Rogers, 351 Mo. 321, 172 S.W.2d 940; ......
  • Johnson v. Frank
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 3, 1945
    ...... statutes. Secs. 876, 1042, 3670, R.S. 1939; State ex rel. Brown v. Wilson, 216 Mo. 215, 115 S.W. 549; State ex. rel. ... Mo. 90; Bambrick v. Bambrick, 157 Mo. 423; State. ex rel. Lambert v. Flynn, 348 Mo. 525, 154 S.W.2d 52;. State ex rel. Dean v. Daues, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT