City of Los Angeles v. McKeag
Before: James
Synopsis
The facts are stated in the- opinion of the court.
JAMES, J.
This action was brought by the city of Los Angeles to recover the amount of one thousand dollars, alleged to have been improperly and without authority paid to the defendants out of the policemen’s pension fund of said city. Defendants were the sons of W. H. McKeag, Sr., who at the time of his death was a police officer employed by said city, and he had been such police officer for more than ten years prior to his death. The defendants, at the time of the death of their father, were of adult age. It was
[30]
alleged in the complaint that McKeag, Sr., died from natural causes, “and that the sickness which caused his death was not caused by the discharge of his duties as a member of said police department.” In their answer defendants, stating that they had no information or belief sufficient to enable them to answer concerning the cause of the sickness resulting in the death of McKeag, denied “that the sickness which caused his death was not caused by the discharge of his duties as a member of said police department.” The answer further set up the charter provisions which authorized the establishment of the police pension fund. Plaintiff gave notice of motion for a judgment on the pleadings, which the court granted and defendants appealed.
Referring first to the charter provisions which are set forth in the answer of defendants, we find there the plan outlined under which the police pension fund was established; also the limitations governing the application of such fund. We quote, in part, subdivision 45 of section
2
of that charter: “To create and maintain, and provide for the disbursement of a policemen’s relief, health, life insurance and pension fund, to be used for the payment of pensions to members of the police department of the city who shall be retired from such department; for the payment of pensions to members of such department who shall become physically disabled by reason of bodily injuries received in, or by reason of sickness caused by, the discharge of their duties, and for the. payment of pensions to the widows and children of members of such police department who shall have died from bodily injuries received, or sickness or disease contracted in the performance or discharge of their duties. Said fund shall be created, maintained and disbursed in such manner as may be prescribed by ordinance. . . . The disbursement of said ‘Policemen’s Pension. Fund, ’ as provided for by ordinance, shall be left to the exclusive control, discretion and judgment of a commission of three persons, to be called the ‘Policemen’s Pension Commission, ’ the said commission to consist of the chief of police, the health commissioner and the president of the council. Said commission shall make semi-annual' reports to the city council of all moneys received and disbursed by them.” From an examination of these provisions it must be concluded that the fund when created could only
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)