Clarke v. Police Life & Health Insurance Board
Before: Beatty
Synopsis
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. M. Troutt, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
BEATTY, C. J.
The appellant filed his petition in the superior court for a writ of
mandamus
to the police life and health insurance hoard, compelling that body to grant him a pension out of the fun'd arising under the provisions of the act of March 4, 1889, entitled, “An act to create a police relief, health, and life insurance and .pension fund,” etc. (Stats. 1889, p. 56.) A general demurrer to his petition was sustained, and judgment passed in favor of the board. This is an appeal from the judgment, and the sole question to he determined is whether, on the facts stated in the petition, the appellant is by the terms of the law, as amended March 2,1897 (Stats. 1897, p. 52), entitled to a pension.
The petitioner was appointed and commenced his service on the police force of the city and county of San Francisco December 3, 1856. He continued to serve until September 1, 1868, when he was removed without cause. On the 1st of February, 1869, he was reappointed and served continuously from that date until December 31, 1887, when the condition of his health compelled him to resign.
Up to the date of appellant’s resignation from the force the only law providing for the allowance of any pecuniary benefits to policemen in addition to their salaries was the act of April 1, 1878. (Stats. 1878, p. 879.) Under the provision of that act the legal representative of a policeman dying in the service was to be paid the sum of one thousand dollars, and to any policeman resigning on account of bad health or physical infirmity was to be paid the amount he had contributed to the “life and health insurance fund,” that is to say, he was to be
[552]
paid two dollars a month for the time he had been in service, that being the sum paid into the special fund from the general county funds under the act of 1878, on account of every policeman on the rolls. As the petitioner resigned on account of ill-health in 1887, while the act of 1878 was in force, it is to be presumed that he received the two dollars per month to which he was entitled, and that his claims upon the fund ended with his retirement from the force.
More than a year after his resignation the act of 1889 was passed, by which a new system was established, and the act of 1878 repealed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)