{ "id": 1705439, "name": "Hestand v. Erke", "name_abbreviation": "Hestand v. Erke", "decision_date": "1957-02-04", "docket_number": "5-1156", "first_page": "309", "last_page": "312", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "227 Ark. 309" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "298 S.W.2d 44" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "48 A. 2d 745", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 Del. 472", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Del.", "case_ids": [ 445034 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/del/43/0472-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 378, "char_count": 6249, "ocr_confidence": 0.477, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.36624317808059e-08, "percentile": 0.48155606755451763 }, "sha256": "eea57f359fc513dbdd49f96ab899c7ceb6e141b7455e7b62c7284a0233c32b74", "simhash": "1:316db6ae473d4db1", "word_count": 1077 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:25.767944+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Hestand v. Erke." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Paul Ward, Associate Justice.\nThis appeal deals with the proper retirement pay for a Lieutenant in the Police Department of the City of Fort Smith, Arkansas.\nAfter 20 years of service in the police department appellee, Oscar Erke, at his own request, was permitted, by the Board of Trustees for the Policemen\u2019s Pension and Belief Fund, to retire, and his retirement pay was fixed at $135.75 per month. The Board arrived at the above amount as follows: appellee\u2019s regular monthly salary as a Lieutenant at the time of retirement was $271.50 as fixed by City Ordinance No. 2195, and Ark. Stats. \u00a7 19-1809 provides for a pension of \u201chalf pay\u201d in event of retirement.\nAppellee filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the circuit court, directed against the members of the said Board, asking the court to compel the Board to fix appellee\u2019s retirement pay at $166.95 per month out of the funds held in trust for that purpose. It was. appellee\u2019s contention before the trial court that his salary or pay at the time of retirement was $333.90 per month. The trial court held in favor of appellee, and ordered his retirement pay fixed at one-half of the above amount or $166.95 per month. The Board has appealed.\nThe matter was submitted to the trial court on An Agreed Statement of Facts, the material portions of which, in addition to those already mentioned, are as follows: Appellee served as a member of the police department in excess of 20 years and had risen to the rank of Police Lieutenant when he was retired; He was eligible for retirement under Ark. Stats. \u00a7 19-1809; In accordance with the provisions of Act No. 78 of 1955 appellee did sufficient extra work as a policeman to boost his monthly pay in 1955 as follows \u2014 July $277.37, September $321.42, and October $333.90; The last pay received by appellee as a Lieutenant in the police force was for the month of October 1955, and; Appellee contributed 2 per cent of all extra pay to the Pension and Relief Fund.\nIt is our conclusion that, under the above situation, the Board in this instance was correct in fixing appellee\u2019s retirement pay at $135.75 per month. Appellee\u2019s salary was fixed by Ordinance No. 2195 of the City of Fort Smith and not by Act No. 78 of 1955. The purpose of the latter Act was to limit the hours and days for police personnel to work and not to fix salaries or pay. It is true that said Section 19-1809 provides for retirement \u201cat half pay.\u201d However a careful study of the provisions of the above section together with the related sections convinces us that the word \u201cpay\u201d as used above relates (under the facts of this ease) to the word \u201csalary\u201d as used in the Ordinance mentioned above.\nGeneral Act No. 250 passed in 1937 provides for the Policemen\u2019s Pension and Relief Fund. This Act, as later amended, now comprises Ark. Stats. Sections 19-1801 to 19-1821 inclusive. Section 19-1801 authorizes a millage tax on all property in cities of the first class for the benefit of a pension fund for policemen. Section 19-1802 provides for other funds, one of which is 2 per cent of the \u201cmonthly salary\u201d of each member of the police department. Likewise Section 19-1809 makes mention of \u201cmonthly salary.\u201d\nAccording to Webster\u2019s International Dictionary the word \u201csalary\u201d denotes payment at regular intervals or \u201cfixed compensation regularly paid, as by the year, quarter, month or week.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines the word as \u201ca stated compensation, amounting to so much by the year, month, or other fixed period, . . .\u201d\nIn this case the extra pay which appellee received for the three months specified above was for additional hours he worked when and as called upon to do so under the provisions of Section 19-1712. The very fact that different amounts were paid for each of the three months negatives the idea that they were \u201cregular\u201d payments or \u201cfixed compensation regularly paid.\u201d\nThis entire matter must also be considered from another standpoint which confirms the view we have taken. Pensions have to be paid with money, and the money in this case has to come partly from an assessment on the salaries of the various policemen. It must have been contemplated that such an assessment over a period of many years would produce a substantial and stable fund. No such results however could have been expected from an assessment on remuneration received for brief and irregular extra work such as relied on here by appellee. If appellee\u2019s contention is correct the entire pension program could be endangered simply by giving a large amount of extra work to a policeman for only one month before he was subject to retirement. Manifestly this could be unfair to other policemen who have a right to expect to receive full retirement compensation in the future.\nThe learned judge in an able opinion relied largely upon the holding in the case of State ex rel. King v. Abbott, et al., 43 Del. 472, 48 A. 2d 745, but the facts in that case distinguish it from the case under consideration. There the policeman, at the time of retirement, was drawing base pay at the rate of $170 per month and in addition thereto he was drawing, under legislative enactment, $15 each month under a \u201cState Police Compensation Plan\u201d and $15 each month to compensate for the increased cost of living. The court properly held that all of the above payments constituted salary, holding that the policeman was entitled to a pension of $100 per month, or one-half of his salary. The $15 payments mentioned above met all of the requirements of the definition of a \u201csalary\u201d as stated above \u25a0 \u2014 \u25a0 said payments constituted fixed compensation paid at regular intervals over an extended period of time.\nBecause of the disposition which we have made of this case it is unnecessary to consider appellant\u2019s first contention that the action of the Board of Trustees of the Policemen\u2019s Pension and Belief Fund in this matter was not subject to review by the courts. The Board acted properly in offering to refund to appellee the 2 per cent assessments he has paid on the amounts received for additional work.\nBeversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Paul Ward, Associate Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lem G. Bryan and Chas. A. Beasley, for appellant.", "Kincannon & Kincannon, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Hestand v. Erke.\n5-1156\n298 S. W. 2d 44\nOpinion delivered February 4, 1957.\nLem G. Bryan and Chas. A. Beasley, for appellant.\nKincannon & Kincannon, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0309-01", "first_page_order": 333, "last_page_order": 336 }