Stevens v. Minneapolis Fire Dep't Relief Ass'n

• Decision Date: 23 January 1914
• Citation: 145 N.W. 35,124 Minn. 381
• Parties: STEVENS v. MINNEAPOLIS FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASS'N.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

124 Minn. 381

145 N.W. 35

STEVENS

v.MINNEAPOLIS FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASS'N.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 23, 1914.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Wm. E. Hale, Judge.

Action by Harold L. Stevens against the Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Association. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Where a member of the Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Association, an organization formed under the general laws of the state for the relief of disabled members of the Minneapolis Fire Department, is determined by the association to be disabled within the meaning of its constitution and by-laws and is granted a pension as therein provided, his right to the pension is a vested legal right of which he cannot be deprived except by due process of law, namely, by notice and opportunity to be heard in any proceedings had by the association for the purpose of terminating his rights.

A determination by the association that a member thereof previously entered upon the pension rolls has fully recovered from his disability is not final and conclusive where the member had no notice and was not afforded an opportunity to be heard upon the question.

The rights of the parties are analogous to and controlled by the principles of law applicable to mutual benefit societies.

Findings of the trial court held sustained by the evidence. G. A. Will, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

John J. McHale, of Minneapolis, for respondent.

BROWN, C. J.

The pleadings and evidence in this case disclose the following facts: Defendant is an association organized under the general laws of the state (chapter 58, R. L. 1905; chapter 24, Laws 1907 [Gen. St. 1913, § 3348]) for the relief of disabled members of the Minneapolis Fire Department, and of their families in case of death resulting from the performance of their duties as firemen. Plaintiff was a member of the fire department serving in different capacities from September, 1895, to February 28, 1902. From injuries and exposure in the performance of his duties he became disabled from the further discharge thereof and was by the relief association placed upon its pension rolls as entitled to certain monthly allowances for his support. The proceedings had for this purpose were in all things regular, and plaintiff thereafter drew from the association the amount of the pension granted him until May 27, 1907. On that date the association, acting through its board of trustees, in proceedings had for the purpose, determined that plaintiff had fully recovered from his disability, and his name was ordered stricken from the pension rolls, and further payments were thereafter refused. Plaintiff was not informed of this proceeding and subsequently interposed objections to his removal, and applied for reinstatement, which was refused. This action was thereafter brought to recover the amount due under the pension allowance from the date of the suspension; the theory of the action being that the removal of plaintiff as a pensioner was without right and was wrongful and unlawful and a violation of plaintiff's rights in the premises. Defendant answered to the merits, insisting that plaintiff had recovered from his disability and that the removal was not only justified but required by the laws of the association. The principal issue litigated on the trial centered around the question whether plaintiff had recovered and was therefore no longer entitled to a pension from the association. The trial court found as a fact that he had not so recovered, was still, at the time of the trial, suffering from the disability for which the pension was granted, that the action of the association in removing plaintiff was not justified by the facts, and judgment was ordered for plaintiff accordingly. Defendant appealed.

The assignments of error present the questions whether the findings of the trial court are sustained by the evidence, and whether the decision rendered is contrary to law. Whether the action of the association in removing plaintiff from the list of pensioned members can be reviewed in this manner, or whether to entitle plaintiff to recover he should first by some appropriate proceeding be restored to membership, are questions which were not raised by the pleadings or on the trial and are not therefore considered. We limit our consideration solely to the two questions mentioned above. It is contended that the decision of the court below is contrary to law for the reasons: (1) That the pension granted by the association to sick and disabled firemen is a mere gratuity, in which the pensioner has no vested right, and may be withdrawn or discontinued at pleasure; and (2) that the determination by the association, through its board of trustees, that plaintiff had fully recovered from the disability for which the pension was granted, is final; at least, that the action of defendant in this respect is open to review by the courts only when the power of removal has been greatly abused.

[1] 1. The contention that the pension is a mere gratuity to be granted or discontinued at the pleasure of the association is not sustained. The...