Ball v. Bd. of Trs. of Teachers' Ret. Fund

• Decision Date: 13 June 1904
• Citation: 71 N.J.L. 64,58 A. 111
• Parties: BALL v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TEACHERS' RETIREMENT FUND.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

58 A. 111

71 N.J.L. 64

BALL

v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TEACHERS' RETIREMENT FUND.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 13, 1904.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Action by Harriet E. Ball against the Board of Trustees of the Teachers' Retirement Fund. Demurrer to plea sustained.

Argued February term, 1904, before GUMMERE, C. J., and DIXON, GARRISON, and SWAIZE, JJ.

Edwin B. Goodell, for plaintiff.

C. Franklin Wilson, for defendant.

SWAYZE, J. This is an action brought against a public board created by acts of the Legislature (P. L. 1896, p. 58; P. L. 1899, p. 475) which are now embodied in article 25 of the school law of 1903 (P. L. 1903, p. 80). The board was originally created for the purpose of administering a fund made up (1) of contributions of teachers who elect to come under the provisions of the act; (2) of money and property received by donation, legacy, gift, bequest, or otherwise, and (3) "of all other methods of increment as may be duly and legally devised for the increase of the fund." The section of the act of 1890 important in the present case is section 3. That section provides that whenever any teacher entitled to the benefits of the act has taught in the public schools for 20 years, and becomes incapacitated from performing the duties of a teacher, such teacher shall, at his or her request, be retired as a teacher, and shall thereafter receive an annuity out of said fund. The other provisions of the section are not material to the present question. The act of 1899 amended this section by making the retirement of the teacher dependent upon the approval of the board of trustees, so that thereafter the incapacitated teacher was not entitled to receive the annuity merely upon his or her request, as under the act of 1896. The amended section provided that the decision of the board of trustees upon any application for such annuity should conclusively determine the right of the applicant thereto. The difference between the act of 1896 and the act of 1899 is that under the former the incapacitated teacher had an absolute right to the annuity upon compliance with the then prescribed conditions; under the latter the right depended on the action of the board of trustees. It is upon this distinction that the plea which has been demurred to relies. The declaration avers a compliance with all the conditions required by the act of 1896, except the payment of 20 per cent. of the salary, and, as to that, avers that the plaintiff has tendered herself ready and willing to pay, and is now ready and willing so to do, and that the defendant refused to receive the same, and expressly waived payment thereof. The plea demurred to, after setting out the provisions of the act of 1899 above referred to, avers that the board has not decided upon the plaintiff's application, which is still pending before the board and undetermined. The question for solution, therefore, is whether the rights of the plaintiff acquired by her under the act of 1896 can be taken away by subsequent legislation.

The...