State, Ex Rel., v. Conners
| Decision Date | 28 May 1930 |
| Docket Number | 22159 |
| Citation | 122 Ohio St. 355,171 N.E. 589 |
| Parties | The State, Ex Rel. Juhlman, v. Conners Et Al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Mandamus - Writ denied where injunctive relief sought - Removal of policeman from pension list, and restoration to active service - Pleading - Demand and denial of additional pension for military service, not alleged.
IN MANDAMUS.
Messrs Zielonka & Kuertz, for relator.
Mr John D. Ellis, city solicitor, Mr. Milton H. Schmidt, and Mr John J. O'Donnell, for respondents.
This action is in mandamus. The petition was filed in this court on February 7, 1930. It alleges that the relator was honorably discharged from the police department of the city of Cincinnati in December, 1922, and that thereupon the board of trustees of the police relief fund upon his application, determined that he had been permanently disabled by reason of injuries received by him while in the performance of his official duty, and approved his application for a pension of $50 per month out of the police relief fund; that subsequently thereto, by a rule duly adopted, his monthly pension was increased to $75 per month that he has received such pension ever since; that on February 4, 1930, the board of trustees of the police relief fund of the city of Cincinnati, pursuant to an order of the city manager and the chief of police of that city, suspended and removed him from the pension list, effective February 10, 1930.
He alleges certain other facts pertaining to his military service in the World War, and recites a rule of the board of trustees of the police relief fund, duly adopted, under which he claims he is entitled to an additional pension of $50 per month for injuries received in such service; but he does not allege that he has ever made application to the board of trustees of the police relief fund for the allowance of such additional pension, nor that such board has ever passed upon his right to receive such pension.
He alleges that the city manager and the chief of police have ordered him to return to duty as a police officer; alleges that he is not physically fit to perform such police service and that the city manager and the chief of police are without power to enforce such order.
He attaches a copy of the rules adopted by the board of trustees of the police relief fund and in force when his pension was allowed, and makes such other allegations as are necessary to raise the question whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial