Pecoy v. City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 16 October 1914
• Docket Number: No. 9506.,9506.
• Citation: 265 Ill. 78,106 N.E. 435
• Parties: PECOY v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

265 Ill. 78

106 N.E. 435

PECOY

v.CITY OF CHICAGO et al.

No. 9506.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 16, 1914.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Thomas G. Windes, Judge.

Petition by Arthur A. Pecoy against the City of Chicago and others for mandamus. There was a judgment of dismissal rendered on sustaining a demurrer to the petition, and petitioner brings error. Affirmed.

A. B. Chilcoat, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

William H. Sexton, Corp. Counsel, and John W. Beckwith, both of Chicago (Joseph F. Grossman, of Chicago, of counsel), for defendants in error.

VICKERS, J.

Arthur A. Pecoy filed a petition in the circuit court of Cook county against Carter H. Harrison, mayor, and certain other persons constituting the board of trustees of the police pension fund, praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to enroll the name of the petitioner as one of the beneficiaries of the police pension fund of Chicago, and for an order requiring the payment to him, out of the fund set apart as said pension fund, an annual pension of $600 per year from the date of petitioner's applicationfor said pension during the remainder of his life. The respondents appeared and filed a demurrer to said petition, which was sustained. The petitioner elected to abide by his petition, and the court dismissed it and rendered judgment against him for costs. On the ground that a construction of the Constitution is involved, the petitioner has sued out a writ of error from this court to obtain a review of the action of the circuit court in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing his petition.

The petition alleges that plaintiff in error was legally appointed a police patrolman in the police department of the city of Chicago on the 3d day of June, 1887, and that he took the oath of office and entered upon the duties of such police patrolman at a salary of $1,000 per annum, payable in installments of $83.33 per month, and continued in the service until October 26, 1897, when, as he alleges, he was wrongfully dropped from the payroll. At the time the plaintiff in error was suspended he had served a few months over ten years, and his petition is based on the theory that, under the law, ten years' continuous service and continuous contribution to the police pension fund entitle him to be enrolled as a pensioner. Whether this contention is well founded is the controlling question presented for our consideration.

Section 7 of an act of the Legislature approved May 24, 1877 (Laws 1877, p. 62), as added in 1879 (Laws 1879, p. 74), reads as follows:

‘Any person who shall have served in either the police or fire departments of said city or village for the full term of ten (10) years, and shall have paid into the fund hereby provided for all assessments regularly made upon him by the board of trustees as required by this act, and the regulations of said board of trustees passed in pursuance of this act, and shall have complied with all the rules and regulations lawfully established by the board of trustees in the same manner, as if such person was an active member in said police or fire department, may continue his membership in this organization, and be entitled to the benefits of this fund after he shall have ceased to be a member in either said police or fire department, by complying with all the provisions of this act, relative to the payment of assessments, etc., the same as prior to his ceasing to be a member of said departments, and the widow or children of such person shall be entitled to all benefits hereby secured to other members of this organization.’

[1] The above statute was in force at the time plaintiff in error was appointed a police patrolman. His contention is that his status in respect to the pension fund was established at the time he entered the service, and that, if he continued in the service until he became entitled to a pension under the law as it existed at the time of his appointment, he has a right to be placed on the pension roll, even though the law has been modified or repealed after his appointment. He contends that the law as it existed at the time he entered the service, in regard to a pension, entered into and formed a part of the contract of his employment, and that his rights to the benefits which would accrue under the then existing statute were vested property rights, of which he could not be deprived by any subsequent act of the Legislature. This argument cannot be sustained. Pensions are in the nature of bounties of the government, which it has the right to give, withhold, distribute, or recall at its discretion. United States v. Teller, 107 U. S. 64, 2 Sup. Ct. 39, 27 L. Ed. 352;Frisbie v. United States, 157 U. S. 160, 15 Sup. Ct. 586, 39 L. Ed. 657;Eddy v. Morgan, 216 Ill. 437, 75 N. E. 174. This rule is not changed by the circumstance that plaintiff in error claims to have contributed 1 per cent. of his salary to such fund. The alleged contribution was not,...