State ex rel. Palm v. City of Brazil
| Decision Date | 12 June 1947 |
| Docket Number | 28278. |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. PALM et al. v. CITY OF BRAZIL et al. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clay Circuit Court; Robert B. Stewart, Judge.
Cooper Royse, Gambill & Crawford, Gambill, Dudley, Cox & Crawford, all of Terre Haute, and Harvey L. Fisher, of Brazil, for appellants.
John W. Baumunk, of Brazil, and Cadick & Burns, of Indianapolis, for appellees.
Two of relators were formerly policemen and three were firemen in the City of Brazil, Indiana, and filed this action against the appellees, alleging that they had been unlawfully dismissed as policemen and firemen respectively and asking that appellees be mandated to re-instate them and to pay them their salaries as such for each month since the date of their alleged wrongful dismissal.
In the complaint it was alleged that each of the relators had been duly appointed as a city policeman or fireman, and was serving as such on August 1, 1945, when he was dismissed without cause and without the filing of any charge against him and without hearing. Appellees filed answer admitting that Brazil is a city of the fifth class, organized under the laws of the State of Indiana, and for many years prior to August 1, 1945, had continuously maintained a regularly organized police and fire department, and denying all other allegations of the complaint. The trial court found for appellees and denied relators the relief prayed for.
Both the relators and appellees agree that the court's decision was based upon the hypothesis that relators resigned and were not dismissed. We think the record justifies this approach. Having tried the case on this theory and having decided it in favor of the City and its officers it follows that the trial court found that the relators had resigned and that their separation from the police and fire departments of Brazil was due to resignation and not to dismissal. We may not weigh the evidence upon this issue but must accept the court's conclusion, if there is any substantial evidence to support it. City of Peru v. State ex rel. McGuire, 1936, 210 Ind. 668, 670, 199 N.E. 151. We find substantial evidence that prior to July 24, 1945, the policemen and firemen of Brazil had asked the city council of Brazil to increase their salaries $40 per month. A committee to represent the policemen and firemen was organized, employed counsel and appeared before the city council on July 24, 1945. The mayor and all members of the Board of Public Works and Safety were present at the council meeting. The council declined to raise the salaries as much as was desired by relators and thereupon relators, through their committee and counsel, announced that they would not accept the raise granted and were resigning and were walking off the job and quitting on August 1. The mayor told them that 'If that is the way you want it, that is the way it will be'. The minutes of the council meeting showed that the salaries of policemen and firemen were increased $20 per month and then appeared the following: 'Policemen and Firemen Committee and their Attorney, Harvey Fisher, announced to the mayor and council their refusal to accept the above increase and were walking off and quitting their respective jobs August 1, 1945.' All this was sufficient evidence to support the decision of the court that relators had resigned.
On July 30, 1945, each of the relators was given a notice signed by the mayor that he was removed and dismissed as fireman or policeman, as the case happened to be, effective at the changing of shifts on the morning of August 1. On July 31, the committee representing the policemen and firemen delivered to the mayor a written notice to the effect that the policemen and firemen had met and reconsidered the matter of their wages and decided to accept the salaries offered by the council and to remain on the job as firemen and policemen. Relators reported for work on August 1, but the mayor told them there was no work for them and to gather up their belongings and surrender city property and to check out.
It is argued by relators that the Board of Public Works and Safety acts only at its meetings and speaks only by its records and that its records are conclusive and show that relators were dismissed without notice or hearing. The evidence on this phase of the case showed that there were no minutes of any meeting of the Board of Public Works and Safety held on July 24, 1945. Minutes of a July 31 meeting contain copies of the notices of dismissal signed by the mayor to each of the relators, to which attention has been called above. The minutes also show service of such notices upon relators by the chief of police and further show a report by the mayor to the effect that he had removed and dismissed relators to improve the service, to promote efficiency and to promote more co-operation in the fire and police departments and to provide better service for the citizens of Brazil. These notices and this report, all signed only by the major, are simply set out in the minutes. No action by the Board upon the same is shown and no dismissal by the Board is shown.
Minutes of an August 14, 1945 meeting show the submission of an additional report by the mayor. This additional or supplemental report reads as follows:
'To the Board of Public Works and Safety, the Common Council, and the City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Brazil, Indiana:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Palm v. City of Brazil, 28278.
...225 Ind. 30873 N.E.2d 485STATE ex rel. PALM et al.v.CITY OF BRAZIL et al.No. 28278.Supreme Court of Indiana.June 12, Action by the State of Indiana, on the relation of Stanley Palm and others, against City of Brazil, Indiana, Clint M. Wilson, Mayor of City of Brazil, Indiana, and others, fo......