State ex rel. Randel v. Scott, 4340

• Decision Date: 31 December 1952
• Docket Number: No. 4340,4340
• Parties: , 53 O.O. 132 STATE ex rel. RANDEL v. SCOTT. . Summit County
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 197

95 Ohio App. 197

118 N.E.2d 426, 53 O.O. 132

STATE ex rel. RANDEL v. SCOTT.

No. 4340.

Court of Appeals of Ohio. Summit County.

Dec. 31, 1952.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A police officer of a municipal corporation is a public officer whose salary exists as a creature of the law and as an incident to his office. However, the subject of sick-leave benefits for such officer is a matter of state control under the civil service law of this state.

2. The state Legislature may define the terms it uses in the statutes, and, by so doing, designate a police officer as an 'employee' within the meaning of the civil service law.

Paul C. Laybourne, Akron, for plaintiff.

Donald F. Kepple, City Sol., Cuyahoga Falls, for defendant.

HUNSICKER, Presiding Judge.

This is an action in mandamus, filed originally in this court, in which the state of Ohio, on relation of Thomas Randel, prays for the issuance of a writ against Raymond Scott, auditor of the city of Cuyahoga Falls, to compel the payment of the balance of relator's full salary as a police officer of the city for a period of time during which he was on 'sick leave' due to injuries received not in the line of duty.

The amount sought is one hundred and seventy dollars. The city admits in its pleading a legal obligation to pay eighty-seven dollars and eighty-three cents, by virtue of a city ordinance regulating pay for sick leave of city 'employees.'

This court has heretofore determined that 'A police officer of a municipal corporation is a public officer and his salary is an incident of the office itself.' Wright v. City of Lorain, 70 Ohio App. 337, at p. 340, 46 N.E.2d 325, at page 327.

It is a fundamental principle of the law of public officers that the right of an officer to his salary does not depend upon contract, but exists as a creature of the law and as an incident to the office. So long as one occupies his office, such officer is entitled to the compensation attached thereto, even if he is prevented by sickness from performing the duties of the office. This principle of law, however, is not operative in the face of valid statutory or ordinance regulations providing for the rate of compensation, if any, during an officer's absence from his duties. See 43 American Jurisprudence, Public Officers, Section 379; 168 A.L.R. 476, annotation.

Tenure, dismissal, suspension, and related matters concerning a police officer, are subject to state control. State ex rel. Arey v. Sherrill, City Manager, 142 Ohio St. 574, 53 N.E.2d 501. As a part of such state control, the Legislature of this state has enacted a civil service law, Section 486-1a et seq., General Code, and has placed police officers within the classified service, Section 4378, General Code, Section 486-17c of this act provides for sick-leave payments to employees in governmental agencies. This statute reads in part as follows:

'Each full-time employee, whose salary or wage is paid in whole or in part by the state of Ohio and each full-time employee in the various offices of the county service and municipal service, and each full-time employee of any board of education, shall be entitled for each completed month of service to sick leave...