Hooten v. Holcomb

• Citation: 170 S.E. 803,177 Ga. 561
• Docket Number: 9225.
• Decision Date: 08 August 1933
• Parties: HOOTEN v. HOLCOMB et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

170 S.E. 803

177 Ga. 561

HOOTEN v. HOLCOMB et al.

No. 9225.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 8, 1933

Rehearing Denied Sept. 14, 1933.

Syllabus by the Court.

Determination of trustees of police pension fund as to what policemen and policemen's families are entitled to pensions held conclusive (Laws 1925, p. 234).

Assignment alleging that municipal regulation violated state and Federal Constitutions, in that it denied due process, held insufficient (Const. Ga. art. 1, § 1, par. 3; Const. U.S Amend. 14).

Mandamus compelling trustees of police pension fund to pay pension to widow who had married policeman after he had retired on pension held properly refused (Laws 1925, p. 234).

1. Under the act of 1925, providing for police pensions in certain cities (Ga. Laws 1925, p. 234), there is no appeal from the decision of the trustees who determine what policemen and their families are entitled to the pensions provided for in the act; and therefore the decision of such trustees is final. It was within the discretion of the trustees to define the term "widow," referring to widows of policemen, as excluding widows of those who had been active policemen, but who did not actually contract marriage with the surviving widow and claimant until the policeman had been retired from all active service.

2. Under well-settled rules of this court, the assignment of error which alleges that the municipal regulation was in violation of the state and Federal Constitutions is not sufficiently specific to present anything for the consideration of the court.

3. The court did not err in refusing a mandamus absolute to compel the board of trustees to pay the applicant a pension as the widow of a policeman who had been retired from service and placed upon a pension before the applicant entered into the marital relation with the deceased pensioner.

RUSSELL C.J., dissenting.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; John D. Humphries, Judge.

Petition for mandamus by Mrs. J. H. Hooten against A. J. Holcomb Chairman, and others. To review a judgment refusing a mandamus absolute, petitioner brings error.

Affirmed.

Judson Andrews and Sidney Holderness, Jr., both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Jas. L. Mayson, C. S. Winn, and J. C. Savage, all of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

RUSSELL, Chief Justice (after stating the foregoing facts).

In this case the board of trustees of the Atlanta police pension fund decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to a pension as the widow of her husband, because he retired from active service as a policeman before he was married to her. She admits that she married Mr. Hooten after he had been retired upon a pension from active duty by the police department of Atlanta.

The power of board of trustee of the Atlanta...