State ex rel. Lambert v. O'Malley

• Decision Date: 08 November 1938
• Citation: State ex rel. Lambert v. O'Malley, 234 Mo.App. 773, 121 S.W.2d 228 (Mo. App. 1938)
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. ALBERT BOND LAMBERT, LOUIS NOLTE, JOHN J. NANGLE, JOHN H. GLASSCO, EDWARD R. HANDLIN, ANDREW T. AYLWARD, AND HARRY J. POWELL, AS THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, RELATORS, v. FRANK C. O'MALLEY, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, RESPONDENT
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

121 S.W.2d 228

234 Mo.App. 773

STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. ALBERT BOND LAMBERT, LOUIS NOLTE, JOHN J. NANGLE, JOHN H. GLASSCO, EDWARD R. HANDLIN, ANDREW T. AYLWARD, AND HARRY J. POWELL, AS THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, RELATORS, v. FRANK C. O'MALLEY, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, RESPONDENT

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

November 8, 1938

Relator's Motion for a Rehearing and Suggestions in Support Thereof Filed November 18, 1928.

Relator's Motion for Rehearing Overruled November 22, 1938.

Original proceeding in prohibition to test jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to entertain and adjudicate an action finding before it.

Preliminary writ of prohibition quashed.

Alroy S. Phillips for respondent.

(1)Secs. 46,47,48 of Article IV of Mo. Const.;State ex rel. Heaven v. Ziegenhein,144 Mo. 283, 289, 291, 292;State ex rel. Wander v. Kimmel,256 Mo. 611, 630-31 631, 639;Sec. 48a of Art. IV of Mo. Const.;Laws of Mo. of1927, pp. 525-26;Secs. 8906-18, R. S. Mo., 1929;State ex rel. Hocker v. Nolte,330 Mo. 299, 304, 48 S.W.2d 916, 918.(2) The accidental disability retirement allowance is a constitutional and statutory right which is vested in the member upon the happening of the accident by virtue of the statute and not by the grace of the trustees.Sec. 48a of Art. IV of Mo. Const.;Sec. 8911 (5) and (6), R. S. Mo1929;People ex rel. Bliel v. Martin,131 N.Y. 196, 30 N.E. 60;Keenan v. Dunscomb,283 N.Y.S. 618, 619;Friel v. McAdoo,101 A.D. 155, 91 N.Y.S. 454, 455, 456(Aff.181 N.Y. 558, 74 N.E. 1117);State ex rel. Stevens v. Wurdeman,295 Mo. 566, 586;State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis,318 Mo. 870, 907, 2 S.W.2d 713, 727;State ex rel. Hocker v. Nolte,330 Mo. 299, 304-05, 48 S.W.2d 916, 918;Dismuke v. United States,297 U.S. 167, 169, 170, 56 S.Ct. 400, 402; Case notes 54 A. L. R. 943, 98 A. L. R. 505;Pennie v. Reis,132 U.S. 464, 471, 10 S.Ct. 149, 151;Kavanaugh v. Bd. of Police Fund Comms.,134 Cal. 50, 66 P. 36, 37;French v. Cook,173 Cal. 126, 160 P. 411, 413;Gaffney v. Young,200 Iowa 1030, 205 N.W. 865-66;Lage v. City of Marshalltown,212 Iowa 53, 235 N.W. 761, 763.(3)Sec. 8910 (1) and (6), R. S. Mo. 1929;12 C. J. 1234;Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Ridge,169 Mo. 376, 387;State ex rel. Hurwitz v. North,304 Mo. 607, 620, 617-23, 271 U.S. 40, 46 S.Ct. 384;State ex rel. Anderson Motor Service Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 339 Mo. 469, 477-78, 97 S.W.2d 116, 120;70 C. J. 482;State v. Jackson,318 Mo. 1149, 1154, 2 S.W.2d 758, 760;Secs. 8907and8912 (1), R. S. 1929;1 C. J. S. 1073;65 C. J. 214, 515, 526, 861, 868, 957, 1031;Clark v. Mitchell,64 Mo. 564, 575, 578, 579;Jackson County v. Fayman,329 Mo. 423, 432, 434, 44 S.W.2d 849, 852, 853;Secs. 3343,14023,14030and14033, R. S. Mo., 1929;French v. Cook,173 Cal. 126, 160 P. 411, 412-13;Sheehan v. Bd. of Police Comm.,47 Cal.App. 129, 190 P. 51, 197 Cal. 70, 239 P. 844;Mogan v. Police Comms.,100 Cal.App. 270, 279 P. 1080, 1081;Laws of New Jersey of 1911, p. 104, ch. 72, secs. 5, 6 and 7;Hayes v. Hoboken, 93 N.J. L. 432, 108 A. 868, 869.(4) If sec. 8910, R. S. Mo., 1929, gives relator trustees the sole and exclusive power to determine questions of fact and allow benefits under the act, the section is unconstitutional and void and this court should deny the writ for lack of jurisdiction or adopt the construction that the section gives no such power.F. Const.;Art. I, sec. 10;Fourteenth Amend.sec. 1;Mo. Const.;Art. III;Art. VI, sec. 1;Art. II, secs. 10,15,28and30;Art. IV, sec. 48a;12 C. J. 1234;Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Ridge,169 Mo. 376, 387;State ex rel. Hurwitz v. North,304 Mo. 607, 617-23;Anderson Motor Service Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm.,339 Mo. 469, 477-78, 97 S.W.2d 116, 120;Stephens v. First National Bank,43 Mo. 385, 388, 389;State ex rel. Houghey v. Ryan,182 Mo. 349, 355-57;State ex rel. Board of Education v. Nast,207 Mo. 708;Lusk v. Atkinson,268 Mo. 109, 116;State ex rel. Mo. P. R. R. v. Pub. Serv. Comm.,303 Mo. 212, 218-20;12 C. J. 1220;British-American Portland Cement Co. v. Citizens Gas Co.,255 Mo. 1, 18, 20-21;De May v. Liberty Foundry Co.,327 Mo. 495, 37 S.W.2d 640;Kristanik v. Chevrolet Motor Co.,335 Mo. 60, 68, 70 S.W.2d 890, 893-94;State ex rel. Penfield v. Mossman,135 Mo.App. 124;State ex rel. Mulholland v. Smith,141 Mo. 1;State ex rel. Sale v. Nortoni,201 Mo. 1;Automobile Gasoline Co. v. St. Louis,326 Mo. 435, 443, 32 S.W.2d 281, 283.(5) The new constitutional and statutory right to benefits under the act may be enforced by any appropriate remedy at law or in equity.Householder v. Kansas City,83 Mo. 488, 495;Hickman v. Kansas City,120 Mo. 110, 117-120;Cummings v. Winn,89 Mo. 51, 56.(6) The appropriate remedy in the case at bar is the one adopted by plaintiff, namely, an action at law, rather than mandamus, because it involves an issue of the facts as to the accident, and respondent has jurisdiction thereof.Hayes v. Hoboken, 93 N.J. L. 432, 108 A. 868, 869;State ex rel. Forgrave v. Hill,272 Mo. 206, 209-10;State ex rel. Mitchell v. Rose,313 Mo. 369, 373-74;Perkins v. Burks,336 Mo. 248, 253-55, 78 S.W.2d 845, 848-49;American Fire Alarm Co. v. Bd. of Police Comms.,285 Mo. 581, 593-94;Art. VI, sec. 22, Const. of Mo., sec. 1938 (2d), R. S. Mo., 1929;State ex rel. Spencer v. Anderson(Mo. App.),101 S.W.2d 530, 533.(7) The fact that the act provides for no appeal or review is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on relator trustees, and its proper construction is that there is a remedy in the courts.Webster's International Dictionary--petitio principii;48 C. J. 1053;Jackson County v. Fayman,329 Mo. 423, 432, 434, 44 S.W.2d 849, 852, 853;State ex rel. Forgrave v. Hill,272 Mo. 206, 214;Perkins v. Burks,336 Mo. 248, 253, 78 S.W.2d 845, 848;Hickman v. Kansas City,120 Mo. 110, 117-20;15 C. J. 732, note 71(a);46 C. J. 1032.

Edgar H. Wayman and Martin Barrow for relators.

(1)R. S.Mo., 1929, secs. 8906 to 8918, inclusive, creates Police Retirement System.(2) Action of board is final and conclusive.21 R. C. L. 251(par. 15);43 C. J. 817;Smith v. Board of Trustees,173 Ga. 437;Board of Trustees v. McCrory,132 Ky. 89;McColgan v. Board,19 P.2d 815(Cal.1933);Morgan v. Board,100 Cal.App. 270;In re Gruber(Okla.),214 P. 690;State ex rel. v. Holmes, 5 Oh. App. 1.(3) Discretionary power of a pension board may not be controlled by courts.43 C. J. 817(par. 1417);21 R. C. L. 251(par. 15);Homan v. Mackey,295 Pa. 82;State v. Firemen's Pension Fund,117 La. 1071;State ex rel. Richardson v. Baldry,56 S.W.2d 67;Rudolph v. U. S. ex rel. Rock, 331 Mo. 1006, 6 F.2d 487, 40 A. L. R. 1046.

BENNICK, C. Hostetter, P. J., and Becker and McCullen, JJ., concur.

OPINION

BENNICK, C.

This is an original proceeding in prohibition which presents the legal question of whether the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate an action brought by a police officer against the Board of Trustees of the Police Retirement System of the City of St. Louis for the recovery of the accidental disability retirement allowance alleged to be due him under the provisions of the Police Retirement Pension System Act(secs. 8906-8918, R. S. Mo., 1929[Mo. Stat. Ann., secs. 8906-8918, pp. 6258-6276]).

Prior to 1926 neither the State nor any municipality thereof possessed authority to make provision for the payment of police pensions from public funds, but in that year there was adopted an amendment to the constitution(Art. 4, sec. 48a) which provides that the General Assembly shall have the power to provide by law, or to authorize any municipality in this State to provide by ordinance, for the pensioning of members of any organized police force and the widows and minor children of deceased members thereof, and that nothing in the constitution contained shall prohibit, or be construed to prohibit, the exercise of such power or authority by the General Assembly.

Pursuant to the authority thus granted by such constitutional amendment, the General Assembly in 1929 enacted the act above cited, which, in cities of this State having a population of five hundred thousand or more, creates and establishes retirement or pension systems for the purpose of providing retirement allowances for policemen in such cities.

Roughly speaking, all policemen in any such city are automatically made members of the system, the general administration of which is vested in a board of trustees of seven persons, comprising the president of the board of police commissioners, the comptroller of the city, two members appointed by the mayor of the city, and three members elected by the members of the retirement system.

It is provided in the act that each trustee shall be entitled to one vote, with four votes necessary to a decision of the board, and that subject to the limitations of the act, the board of trustees shall, from time to time, establish rules and regulations for the administration of the several funds created by the act and for the transaction of the board's business.

Elsewhere it is provided that the board of trustees shall be the trustees of the funds in question, and that it shall have full power to invest and reinvest such funds, subject to all the terms, conditions, limitations, and restrictions imposed by law upon life insurance companies in the State of Missouri in making and disposing of their investments.

With respect to retirement benefits or allowances the act provides (section 8911) a service retirement allowance, an ordinary disability retirement benefit, and an accidental disability retirement benefit.The method of computation of the...