Hollis v. Jones

• Decision Date: 13 April 1937
• Docket Number: 11642.
• Parties: HOLLIS v. JONES et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

191 S.E. 127

184 Ga. 273

HOLLIS v. JONES et al.

No. 11642.

Supreme Court of Georgia

April 13, 1937

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

Petition for mandamus by Mrs. James N. Hollis against O. R. Jones Chairman, and others, as members of the Board of Trustees of the Pension Fund of the Police Department of the City of Atlanta. To review a judgment dismissing the petition on general demurrer, plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

Poole & Fraser, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

J. C Savage, Bond Almand, and Courtland S. Winn, all of Atlanta for defendants in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

RUSSELL Chief Justice.

Mrs James A. Hollis filed her petition for mandamus against O. R Jones and others, as members of the 'Board of Trustees of the Pension Fund of the Police Department of the City of Atlanta,' and alleged: Plaintiff is the widow of James A. Hollis, who died on June 8, 1930. For more than thirty years before his death he was a member of the police department of the City of Atlanta. As his widow plaintiff drew a pension of $99 a month until the month of February, 1933, which was paid to her under the act of the General Assembly approved August 18, 1925 (Laws 1925, p. 234), providing for payment of pensions to retired members of the police department of said city and to the widows of deceased members thereof. Plaintiff's husband during his lifetime, and while he was an active member of the police department of said city, after the passage of the act of 1925 and in accordance with its terms, paid a tax of one per cent. of his salary, which went into the Police Pension Fund of the City of Atlanta. In February, 1933, defendants in their capacity as trustees of the pension fund reduced the amount of the monthly payments to plaintiff to $40, which, as she was informed, was done because of the passage by the General Assembly of the act of February 15, 1933 (Laws 1933, p. 213), authorizing such reduction. So much of said act of 1933 as seeks to reduce the monthly pension from $99 to $40 is void and unconstitutional, as applied to the plaintiff, for the reason that it is in violation of that part of article 1, section 10, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which declares that 'No State shall * * * pass any * * * ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.' The payment by plaintiff's husband of said tax of one per cent. of his salary, pursuant to a contract between him and the defendants as trustees, constituted a valid and binding consideration for said agreement, and the Legislature did not have the right or authority to abrogate said agreement or to reduce the amount of pension due plaintiff as the result of said agreement. By reason of this illegal reduction in the amount of monthly pension paid to plaintiff, said trustees are indebted to her in the sum of $2,478; and there are sufficient funds in their hands to pay this sum. They also have on hand sufficient money to pay...