State, Ex Rel., v. Conners
Decision Date | 28 May 1930 |
Docket Number | 22158 |
Parties | The State, Ex Rel. Dieckroegger, v. Conners Et Al. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Municipal corporations - Police relief fund - Powers of trustees statutory - No discretion to deny pension to retired or dismissed policemen - Rule 45 of Cincinnati Board of Trustees - Refusal for discharge limited to dishonesty, cowardice or felony conviction.
1. The police relief fund of the City of Cincinnati was established and is maintained by virtue and under authority of statutory law, and the powers of the board of trustees of the police relief fund with respect to such fund are the powers conferred by statute.
2. A discretion has not been conferred by statute upon the board of trustees of the police relief fund to deny a pension to a retired or dismissed police officer who is entitled to a pension by the rules of such board duly adopted and in force at the date of his retirement or dismissal.
3. Rule 45 of the board of trustees of the police relief fund of the City of Cincinnati, "Any member of the Police Department who has served fifteen consecutive years, who is discharged for any offense other than dishonesty, cowardice or being convicted of a felony, shall, upon the approval of the Board of Trustees of the Police Relief Fund, be paid a pension from said fund in amount equal to $2.00 per month for each year of consecutive service, provided the pension under this rule shall in no case be more than $50.00 per month," does not confer upon such board a discretion to deny a pension to a "member of the police department who has served fifteen consecutive years, who is discharged for any offense other than dishonesty, cowardice, or being convicted of a felony."
IN MANDAMUS.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Messrs Zielonka & Kuertz, for relator.
Mr John D. Ellis, city solicitor, Mr. Milton H. Schmidt, and Mr John J. O'Donnell, for respondents.
This is an original action in this court. The relator, Walter J. Dieckroegger, alleges in his petition that he was a member of the police department of the city of Cincinnati from January 25, 1913, to November 11, 1929; that on the latter date he was discharged from the police department upon charges other than dishonesty, cowardice, or conviction of a felony; that subsequent thereto he filed an application with the defendant board of trustees of the police relief fund for the payment to him of a pension for his service of nearly seventeen years, under Rule 45; that on December 28, 1929, his application was rejected and disapproved by such board.
He alleges that Rule 45, then in force, reads: "Any member of the Police Department who has served fifteen consecutive years, who is discharged for any offense other than dishonesty, cowardice or being convicted of a felony, shall, upon the approval of the Board of Trustees of the Police Relief Fund, be paid a pension from said fund equal in amount to $2.00 per month for each year of the consecutive service, provided the pension under this rule shall in no case be more than $50.00 per month."
He alleges that there are sufficient funds in the police relief fund for the payment of his pension. He prays for a writ commanding the board of trustees of the police relief fund to allow his application as of the date of such application. A general demurrer to the petition was filed by the defendants.
The police relief fund was established under the authority of Sections 4616 to 4631, inclusive, General Code. The pertinent portions of those sections are:
The question here made is whether the provision of Rule 45 "upon the approval of the Board of Trustees of the Police Relief Fund," confers upon that board a discretion to approve or disapprove an application of a discharged police officer for a pension, when such police officer has served fifteen consecutive...
To continue reading
Request your trial