State ex rel. Lambert v. Padberg, 37062.

• Decision Date: 03 December 1940
• Docket Number: No. 37062.,37062.
• Citation: 145 S.W.2d 123
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI at the relation of ALBERT BOND LAMBERT, LOUIS NOLTE, JOHN J. NANGLE, JOHN H. GLASSCO, EDWARD R. HANDLAN, JAMES J. MORAN and HARRY J. POWELL, Members of and Constituting the Board of Trustees of the Police Retirement System of the City of St. Louis, Relators, v. EUGENE L. PADBERG, Judge of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Presiding in Division No. 3 thereof.

145 S.W.2d 123 STATE OF MISSOURI at the relation of ALBERT BOND LAMBERT, LOUIS NOLTE, JOHN J. NANGLE, JOHN H. GLASSCO, EDWARD R. HANDLAN, JAMES J. MORAN and HARRY J. POWELL, Members of and Constituting the Board of Trustees of the Police Retirement System of the City of St. Louis, Relators,
v.
EUGENE L. PADBERG, Judge of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Presiding in Division No. 3 thereof. No. 37062. Supreme Court of Missouri. Court en Banc, December 3, 1940.

Prohibition.

RULE MADE ABSOLUTE.

E.H. Wayman and Francis Finley for relators.

(1) The "general administration and responsibility for the proper operation" of the police retirement system of the city of St. Louis is "vested in the board of trustees," which board has the power and authority to determine the validity of claims for benefits provided by the laws creating the police retirement system. R.S. 1929, secs. 8906-8918; Laws 1939, p. 619, amending Sec. 8910, R.S. 1929; State ex rel. v. Baker, 293 S.W. 399, 316 Mo. 853; Huntsville Trust Co. v. Noel, 12 S.W. (2d) 751, 321 Mo. 749; In re Bernays' Estate, 126 S.W. (2d) 209, 344 Mo. 135; Helms v. Alabama Pension Comm., 163 So. 807, 231 Ala. 183; State ex rel. Lambert v. O'Malley, 121 S.W. (2d) 228. (2) The board of trustees (relators herein) having been vested by statute with the power to administer the funds of the retirement system, having the power to make rules and regulations for the administration of the system and possessing the power and authority to determine the validity of claims for benefits, respondent (Judge of the Circuit Court sitting in Division No. 3 as a court of equity) exceeded his powers and jurisdiction in restraining and enjoining relators herein from hearing the claim of Francis G. Cook for accidental benefits, and unless prohibited will exceed his powers and jurisdiction by permanently restraining relators from hearing the claim of Francis G. Cook. Federal Power Comm. v. Met. Edison Co., 304 U.S. 375, 82 L. Ed. 1408; Glencoe Lime & Cement Co. v. St. Louis, 108 S.W. (2d) 143, 341 Mo. 689; State ex rel. Bigham v. Williams, 250 S.W. 44, 297 Mo. 607. (3) The board of trustees of the police retirement system, under the law as it existed prior to the 1939 amendment (Laws 1939, p. 619), had exclusive original jurisdiction to hear claims for benefits, and, since the petition filed by Cook and acted upon by respondent showed on its face that Cook's claim had not been acted upon by the board of trustees, respondent exceeded his power and authority in taking jurisdiction of cause No. 23,426 in overruling relators' objections to the jurisdiction and in restraining relators. Laws 1939, p. 619, amending R.S. 1929, sec. 8910; Drainage Dist. No. 23 v. Hetlage, 102 S.W. (2d) 702, 231 Mo. App. 355; State ex inf. v. Long-Bell Lbr. Co., 321 Mo. 461, 12 S.W. (2d) 64; Evans v. McLalin, 189 Mo. App. 310, 175 S.W. 294; 59 C.J. 1035; Smith v. Board of Trustees, 173 Ga. 437, 160 S.E. 395; Board of Trustees v. McCrory, 132 Ky. 89, 116 S.W. 326; Morgan v. Board of Police Commissioners, 279 Pac. 1080, 100 Cal. App. 270; In re Gruber, 214 Pac. 690. (4) The board of trustees of the police retirement system, under the 1939 amendment (Laws 1939, p. 619), has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear claims for benefits and the 1939 amendment, being now effective, must govern the procedure to be followed in determining the merits of claims for benefits. State ex rel. Renick v. St. Louis Co. Court, 38 Mo. 402; State ex rel. v. Haid, 52 S.W. (2d) 183, 330 Mo. 1093; Aetna Ins. Co. v. O'Malley, 118 S.W. (2d) 3, 342 Mo. 800; 21 R.C.L. 251; R.S. 1929, sec. 8960, amended, Laws 1937, p. 406; King v. Board of Trustees, 184 S.W. 929, 192 Mo. App. 583; Laws 1939, p. 619, amending R.S. 1929, sec. 8910. (5) Even if an action in the circuit court would lie prior to the enactment of Laws 1939, pages 619-622, Cook had an adequate remedy at law, and a court of equity was without authority or jurisdiction to entertain cause No. 23,426. State ex rel. Nute v. Bruce, 70 S.W. (2d) 854, 334 Mo. 1107; Danzey v. Laurence, 153 Mo. App. 435; State ex rel. Lambert v. O'Malley, 121 S.W. (2d) 228. (6) The petition in cause No. 23,426 (circuit court number) shows on its face that the plaintiff therein does not come into a court of equity with clean hands and the respondent herein exceeded his power and jurisdiction by taking jurisdiction of the cause, by overruling relators' objections to the jurisdiction and by restraining relators. Little v. Cunningham, 92 S.W. 734, 116 Mo. App. 545; Stierlin v. Teschemacher, 64 S.W. (2d) 647, 333 Mo. 1208; Jones v. Peterson, 72 S.W. (2d) 76, 335 Mo. 242; Creamer v. Bivert, 214 Mo. 473.

Carl M. Dubinsky, Jerome F. Duggan and Alroy S. Phillips for respondent.

(1) Our Constitution and statutes provide for the police retirement system, and under it there is an accidental disability retirement allowance. Laws 1927, pp. 525-26; Mo. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 48 (a); Secs. 8906-18, R.S. 1929; State ex rel. Hocker v. Nolte, 330 Mo. 304, 48 S.W. (2d) 918; Sec. 8911, R.S. 1929. (2) The accidental disability retirement allowance is a constitutional and statutory right which is vested in the member by the happening of the accident by virtue of the statute and not by the grace of the trustees. Sec. 8911 (5) and (6), R.S. 1929; State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis, 318 Mo. 907, 2 S.W. (2d) 727; Dismuke v. United States, 297 U.S. 169, 56 Sup. Ct. 402; State ex rel. Lambert v. O'Malley, 121 S.W. (2d) 231; Pennie v. Reis, 132 U.S. 471, 10 Sup. Ct. 151; Kavanaugh v. Board of Police Pension Fund Commrs., 134 Cal. 50, 66 Pac. 37; Lage v. Marshalltown, 212 Iowa, 53, 235 N.W. 763. (3) Prior to the 1939 amendment the retirement system act provided no remedy and the allowance could be recovered by a civil action in the circuit court. State ex rel. Lambert v. O'Malley, 121 S.W. (2d) 232; Kern v. Legion of Honor, 167 Mo. 482. (4) The amendatory act is inapplicable to the case which was pending at the time it became effective. Laws 1939, p. 619; State ex rel. Renick v. St. Louis County Court, 38 Mo. 408; Tackett v. Vogler, 85 Mo. 480; Lackland v. Walker, 151 Mo. 261; Mott Store Co. v. St. L. & S.F. Railroad, 254 Mo. 654; State ex rel. Knisely v. Holtcamp, 266 Mo. 358; State v. Grant, 79 Mo. 117...