City of Birmingham v. Hendrix
Decision Date | 24 January 1952 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 217 |
Citation | 257 Ala. 300,58 So.2d 626 |
Parties | CITY OF BIRMINGHAM et al. v. HENDRIX et al. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Frank Bainbridge and Mayer U. New-field, Birmingham, for appellants.
Graham, Bibb, Wingo & Foster, Birmingham, for appellees. Pertinent Rules of the Personnel Board are as follows:
'9.8 An employee who is a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia of Alabama, or a member of the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps Reserve, shall be granted leave of absence with pay for a period not to exceed twenty-one days for the purpose of attending field training of such organization when ordered to do so by competent military authority.
The question for decision in this case is whether two employees of the City of Birmingham are entitled to credit for annual vacation and sick leave which they contend accumulated in their favor during their absence on extended active duty as members of the United States Naval Reserve.
At the time of their entry on active duty, both were working in the City Police Department, where they had been so employed continuously for a long time; both were members of the United States Naval Reserve, and both were subject to the Civil Service Laws applicable to employees of the City of Birmingham. One of them, S. L. Nabers, joined the Naval Reserve on April 7, 1941, and went on active duty on May 1, 1941. He served until October 15, 1945, and on November 9, 1945, returned to his position of employment with the City of Birmingham; similarly with respect to the other employee, R. J. Hendrix, except as to dates. He joined the Reserve on November 11, 1942, went on active duty on November 17, 1942, served until October 11, 1945, and returned to his job with the city on November 1, 1945.
Both were granted leaves of absence from their employment for the period of their service with the Navy. Also, they were paid in full for all accumulated leave to which they were entitled at the time of their entry on active duty, including an additional 21 day military leave of absence with pay.
With respect to leave received during their service in the Navy, it was stipulated 'that while the aforesaid Nabers served in the United States Naval Reserve he received twenty-seven days' leave of absence with pay, that he received no sick leave, and that he received $750.00 for terminal leave pay; and that while the aforesaid Hendrix served in the United States Naval Reserve he received twenty-nine days' leave of absence with pay, that he received no sick leave, and that for terminal leave pay he received a $400.00 terminal leave bond, plus $11.00 in cash; * * * that the leave pay referred to, and the terminal leave pay referred to, * * * consisted of leave pay and terminal leave pay from the United States Government, or from the United States Naval Reserve, and did not consist of any benefit from the City of Birmingham.'
On August 9, 1948, they filed a demand in writing with the Personnel Board of Jefferson County that they be allowed the accumulated vacation and sick leave claimed in this proceeding. It was stipulated that prior to said filing they presented, through counsel, on oral claim to the City of Birmingham and were advised that their claim should be presented to the Personnel Board. On December 1, 1948, the Personnel Board denied the claim. Thereupon, petitioners (appellees) commenced this declaratory judgment proceeding seeking establishment of their claimed right to accumulated vacation and sick leave credit. The Personnel Board of Jefferson County, the Personnel Director of Jefferson County, the individual members of the Personnel Board and the City of Birmingham were made respondents. It was further stipulated that petitioners made oral demand on each of the respondents for allowance of their claims prior to the institution of this suit.
Hendrix claimed an accumulation of 35 days vacation leave and 35 days sick leave while on duty with the Navy. Nabers claimed 53 days vacation leave and 53 days sick leave. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
ex parte Jenkins
...Court's denial of relief in W.J., supra, on res judicata grounds, the Legislature enacted § 26-17A-1. See City of Birmingham v. Hendrix, 257 Ala. 300, 307, 58 So.2d 626, 633 (1952) (stating that in attempting to discern the legislative intent of a statute, it is permissible to examine the l......
-
King v. Campbell, 1060804.
...the state of the law when the instrument was adopted, and the conditions necessitating such adoption.'" City of Birmingham v. Hendrix, 257 Ala. 300, 307, 58 So.2d 626, 633 (1952) (quoting In re Upshaw, 247 Ala. 221, 223, 23 So.2d 861, 863 (1945)). We can also look to an act's "`relation to ......
-
Bynum v. City of Oneonta
...the state of the law when the instrument was adopted, and the conditions necessitating such adoption.” ’ City of Birmingham v. Hendrix, 257 Ala. 300, 307, 58 So.2d 626, 633 (1952) (quoting In re Upshaw, 247 Ala. 221, 223, 23 So.2d 861, 863 (1945) ). We can also look to an act's ‘ “relation ......
-
House v. Cullman County
...do, would require us to rewrite the amendment. This Court is not permitted to "legislate by construction." City of Birmingham v. Hendrix, 257 Ala. 300, 312, 58 So.2d 626, 638 (1952); see also State v. Tuscaloosa Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 230 Ala. 476, 161 So. 530 (1935). Neither are we permitted ......