Smith v. Board of Trustees of Policemen's Pension Fund of City of Des Moines

• Decision Date: 11 February 1947
• Docket Number: 46980.
• Citation: 25 N.W.2d 858,238 Iowa 127
• Parties: SMITH v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICEMEN'S PENSION FUND OF THE CITY OF DES MOINES et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

25 N.W.2d 858

238 Iowa 127

SMITH v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICEMEN'S PENSION FUND OF THE CITY OF DES MOINES et al.

No. 46980.

Supreme Court of Iowa

February 11, 1947

Lappen & Carlson, of Des Moines, for appellant.

Fred T. Van Liew, City Sol., and Harvey Bogenrief, Asst. Sol both of Des Moines, for appellees.

HAYS Justice.

Appellant, a member of the Des Moines Police Department since April 11 1924, was on April 10, 1946, upon his own application retired on a pension of $110.75 per month. He had a civil service rating as Clerk of the Department in 1944, at which time he was appointed and qualified as Acting Chief of Police. He continued in this position up to and including April 2, 1946, at which time he returned to the position of Clerk of the Department. The annual salary of the Chief of Police, as fixed by the City of Des Moines, for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1945, and ending March 31, 1946, was $4,116; for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1946, and ending March 31, 1947, it was $4,176 and for Clerk of the Department it was $2,658.

The Board of Trustees of the Policemen's Pension Fund granted the pension on the basis of one-half of the annual salary of the Clerk of the Department, on April 10, 1946, which was $2,658 payable in a monthly sum of $221.50. It was and is appellant's contention that the pension should be based, as to amount, not on the salary of Clerk of the Department but upon the total salary received by him for the last month he worked as a member of the department. For this period he received $310.92, being for 20 days as Chief under the annual salary of $4,116; two days as Chief under the annual salary of $4,176; and eight days as Clerk of the Department under the annual salary of $2,658. In a certiorari hearing in the district court, the Board of Trustees was confirmed in its decision and the writ annulled. This appeal is from the order annulling the writ.

Appellant urges seven alleged errors on the part of the trial court as a basis for reversal. However, the appeal centers upon one proposition, the answer to which is determination of all alleged errors. It is: What is the proper construction of Section 6315, Code 1939, Section 410.6, Code 1946? In so far as pertinent here, that section is as follows: 'Any member of said departments who shall have served twenty-two years or more in such department, and shall have reached the age of fifty years; * * *, shall be entitled to be retired, and upon retirement shall be paid * * * a monthly pension equal to one-half the amount of salary received by him monthly at the date he actually retires from said department. * * *.'

A statute is open to construction where the language used in the statute requires interpretation, that is, where the statute is ambiguous, or will bear two or more constructions, or is of such doubtful or obscure meaning that reasonable minds might be uncertain and disagree as to its meaning. Palmer v. State Bd. of Assessment and Review, 226 Iowa 92, 283 N.W. 415; 50 Am.Jur., § 225, p. 204. However, we do not find the statute in question to be of this nature. The construction contended for by appellant, is a strained one. To adopt it would be to ignore a...