State ex rel. Lambert v. Padberg

• Decision Date: 03 December 1940
• Docket Number: 37062
• Citation: 145 S.W.2d 123,346 Mo. 1082
• 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
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

145 S.W.2d 123

346 Mo. 1082

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

December 3, 1940

Rehearing Denied December 3, 1940.

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 P. 1080, 100 Cal.App. 270; In re Gruber, 214 P. 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 S.Ct. 402; State ex rel. Lambert v. O'Malley, 121 S.W.2d 231; Pennie v. Reis, 132 U.S. 471, 10 S.Ct. 151; Kavanaugh v. Board of Police Pension Fund Commrs., 134 Cal. 50, 66 P. 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; Secs. 658, 660, R. S. 1929; 59 C. J. 924; State v. Slaughter, 70 Mo. 487. (5) The retirement system act as amended does not provide an adequate remedy before relator trustees to enforce such vested right. 12 C. J., 1234; Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Ridge, 169 Mo. 387; State ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 304 Mo. 617, 271 U.S. 40, 46 S.Ct. 384; State ex rel. Anderson Motor Serv. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 339 Mo. 477, 97 S.W.2d 120; State ex rel. Haughey v. Ryan, 182 Mo. 354; 70 C. J. 482; State v. Jackson, 318 Mo. 1154, 2 S.W.2d 760; 1 C. J. S. 1074; 65 C. J. 214, 515, 526, 861, 868, 957, 1031; Clark v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 575; Jackson County v. Fayman, 329 Mo. 434, 44 S.W.2d 853; 1 C. J. S. 988; Secs. 3343, 14023, 14030, 14033, R. S. 1929; State ex rel. Kennedy v. Remmers, 340 Mo. 136, 101 S.W.2d 75; State ex rel. Heimburger v. Wells, 210 Mo. 621; State ex rel. St. Louis v. Caulfield, 333 Mo. 273, 62 S.W.2d 819; Kristanik v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 335 Mo. 69, 70 S.W.2d 894; State ex rel. Miller v. O'Malley, 342 Mo. 646, 117 S.W.2d 321; Hickman v. Kansas City, 120 Mo. 120. (6) The amendatory act of 1939 is unconstitutional. Mo. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 48 (a); Mo. Const., Art. II, Secs. 10, 15, 28, 30; Mo. Const., Arts. III, VI, Sec. 1; Fed. Const., Art. I, Sec. 10, and Amend. 14, Sec. 1; Stephens v. St. Louis Natl. Bank, 43 Mo. 389; Harris v. United States, 5 F.Supp. 370; 12 C. J. 1234; State ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 34 Mo. 617; O'Malley v. Chicago, 365 Ill. 604, 7 N.E.2d 322; State ex rel. Haughey v. Ryan, 182 Mo. 355; State ex rel. Board of Education v. Nast, 207 Mo. 708; Lusk v. Atkinson, 268 Mo. 117; State ex rel. Mo. Pac. Railroad v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 303 Mo. 218; Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Ridge, 169 Mo. 387; British-American Portland Cement Co. v. Citizens Gas Co., 255 Mo. 21; Laws 1939, p. 736; Secs. 3342, 5234, 8960, R. S. 1929; Sec. 8901, R. S. 1929 amended, Laws 1937, p. 404; State ex rel. Edwards v. Donovan, 226 Mo.App. 392, 41 S.W.2d 842; DeMay v. Liberty Foundry Co., 327 Mo. 495, 37 S.W.2d 640. (7) As the act creates a trust, there is jurisdiction in equity over the cause of action stated in the second amended petition, and prohibition will not lie on the ground that the action is at law. Secs. 8906 (14) and (15), 8907, 8910 (1), 8911 (6) and 8912 (1), R. S. 1929; 65 C. J. 233; 1 Perry on Trusts (7 Ed.), sec. 30, p. 20; 2 Bogart on Trusts & Trustees, secs. 43, 254, pp. 194, 828, 831; Commissioners of Sinking Fund v. Walker, 6 How. 143; Federal Trust Co. v. Brand, 76 S.W.2d 144; 21 C. J. 116; Dietrich v. Jones, 227 Mo.App. 370, 53 S.W.2d 1061; Ewing v. Parrish, 148 Mo.App. 502; Priest v. Capitain, 197 S.W. 87; 49 C. J. 520; State ex rel. Hobbs v. McGee, 328 Mo. 1183, 44 S.W.2d 39; State ex rel. Johnson v. Sevier, 339 Mo. 490, 98 S.W.2d 680.

OPINION

Clark, J.

Original proceeding in prohibition to prevent the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis from proceeding further in a pending case brought in that court by one Francis G. Cook, a police officer, against the Board of Trustees of the Police Retirement System of said city for the recovery of allowances alleged to be due him under Article II, Chapter 51, Revised Statutes 1929 (Secs. 8906-8918, R. S. 1929, Mo. Stat. Ann., secs. 8906-8918, pp. 6258-6276).

These statutes were enacted in pursuance to the authority conferred on the General Assembly by Section 48a of Article IV of our Constitution, to provide for the pensioning of members of any organized police force. They provide a detailed and comprehensive plan of pensions for members of the police...