Sullivan v. City of Bridgeport

• Citation: 81 Conn. 660,71 A. 906
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 16 February 1909
• Parties: SULLIVAN v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

71 A. 906

81 Conn. 660

SULLIVAN

v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Feb. 16, 1909.

Case Reserved from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; Howard B. Scott, Judge.

Action by James H. Sullivan against the City of Bridgeport. On reserved questions upon an agreed statement of facts. Judgment advised for plaintiff.

Elmore S. Banks and William A. Redden, for plaintiff.

Thomas M. Cullinan, for defendant.

THAYER, J. The plaintiff has been a member of the defendant's police force since 1886. Prior to October 9, 1907, and continuously up to the commencement of this action, he had been a policeman in grade A, the highest of the four grades into which the patrolmen of the police force are divided. By an ordinance fixing the salaries and compensation of the officers and men of the police department in force on and before October 9, 1907, policemen in grade A were entitled to and received $2.90 per day. On that day the common council passed an ordinance, to take effect at the beginning of the city's next fiscal year, April 1, 1908, and repealing as of that date all inconsistent ordinances, whereby the salary or compensation of each of the officers and each grade of patrolmen was increased. The salary or compensation thereby fixed for patrolmen in grade A was $3.25 per day. The plaintiff without reappointment continued to serve as a patrolman in that grade after April 1, 1908, and has demanded payment for such service since that date at the rate of $3.25 per day. The defendant has paid him at the old rate, $2.90 per day, and has refused to pay the balance claimed. The case is reserved for the advice of this court upon an agreed statement of facts.

The defendant's refusal to pay the increased compensation is based upon three grounds: First, "because both the board of apportionment and taxation and the common council of the defendant city failed and refused to make an appropriation for the police department sufficient to pay such increase in the compensation of members of the police department, and because it is provided by the charter of the city that no money, other than that appropriated, shall be expended for any purpose"; second, "because it is provided by the charter that 'no salary of any officer, employé, agent or servant of the town or city elected, chosen or appointed for a certain term shall be increased or diminished by any action of the common council to take effect during said term'"; third, because "such attempted increase in the compensation of the members of the police department was prohibited by article 24 of the amendments of the Constitution of the state."

It is the duty of the board of apportionment and taxation to determine in February each year the requirement of each department of the city government for the ensuing fiscal year, to apportion to each its required amount, and to lay a tax to meet the total requirement. The fact that in making its estimates for the police department this board failed or refused to make an appropriation sufficient to pay the increased compensation to the members of that department is not conclusive of the plaintiff's right to recover. The purpose of placing the power of apportionment and taxation in the hands of a special board was to protect the taxpayers from unusual and unnecessary expenditures, not to cripple the different departments by depriving them of the means of paying the ordinary salaries and running expenses of their departments. The board of police commissioners have no power to fix the number of patrolmen in their department or the pay of any of them. This power is given to the common council. After the number is fixed the board appoints the required number and can remove them only for cause, unless the number is reduced by the common council. The police commissioners cannot reduce or change the pay of the patrolmen. It clearly is not the intention of the charter that the board of apportionment and taxation should reduce the patrolmen's pay by apportioning to the police department an insufficient sum to provide the compensation fixed by law. When the number and compensation of the policemen have been legally established, it is the duty of that board to provide by a sufficient appropriation and tax levy for their payment; but if they fail to do this the police commissioners may, the appropriation for their department being for a definite sum for general purposes, by cutting expenses elsewhere reserve sufficient for the payment of the fixed salaries. If this is not...