Fulton v. City of Boston
Fulton v. City of Boston
Opinion of the Court
This case, an action of contract, was tried in the Superior Court without a jury upon an agreed statement of all material facts bearing upon the issue raised, and is reported to this-"court without decision, pursuant to G. L. c. 231, § 111.
The action is to recover the sum of $168.40, which was deducted in equal instalments monthly from the salary of the plaintiff who was regularly employed by the city of Boston in its auditing department on May 2, 1926, and continued in said employment until November 3, 1928, the date of the writ in this action. It appears in the agreement of facts that the plaintiff served in the navy of the United States in the World War between April 6, 1917, and November 11, 1918, and was honorably discharged from the naval service on June 11, 1919. He is a resident of the city of Boston, and the provisions of G. L. c. 32, §§56 and 59 were accepted by the mayor of the city of Boston September 30, 1920, and the provisions of St. 1922, c. 521 were accepted by the mayor and city council of the city of Boston on August 22,1922. The civil service commission and the author-' ities in charge of the employment of persons for the city of Boston were informed and knew that the plaintiff had served in the World War between April 6, 1917, and November 11, 1918, and therefore knew that the plaintiff was a veteran as that status is defined in G. L. c. 32, § 56. It is stipulated that if the plaintiff is entitled to recover, judgment shall be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $168.40, otherwise judgment is to be entered for the defendant.
The issue raised by the agreed statement of facts is, Has the plaintiff, who became an employee of the city of Boston after the establishment of the Boston retirement system on February 1, 1923 (St. 1922, c. 521, § 3), by reason of the fact that when employed he was a veteran of the World War, any pension rights under the provisions of G. L. c. 32, §§ 56 to 59, inclusive? Or, is a person of his status on the facts disclosed entitled to any retirement allowance other than is provided for by St. 1922, c. 521?
It is provided by G. L. c. 32, § 56, that “A person who has
St. 1922, c. 521, § 5, reads: “All persons who are employees on the date when this retirement system is established may become members of the system. Every employee in service on said date, except an employee then covered by any other pension or retirement law of this Commonwealth, shall, on the expiration of sixty days from said date, be considered to have become a member of this retirement system unless within that period he shall have sent notice in writing to the retirement board that he does not wish to join the system. Employees declining to join this retirement system within sixty days from the establishment of the system may thereafter be admitted to membership but no employee shall receive credit for prior service unless he applies for membership or becomes a member of the retirement system within one year from the date of the establishment of the system. An employee who is covered by any other pension or retirement law of the Commonwealth on the date when this retirement system is established shall not be considered to have become a member of this retirement system unless said employee shall then or thereafter make written application to join this system and shall therein waive and renounce all benefits
In substance, it is contended by the plaintiff that the Legislature did not intend by St. 1922, c. 521, § 5, to deprive veterans of the World War who entered the regular and permanent employ of the city of Boston after February 1, 1923, of the benefits and privileges which they would enjoy had they entered the regular and permanent service of the city before February 1, 1923. The position of. the plaintiff is based upon the provision of § 32, supra.
It is the contention of the defendant that it was the intention of the Legislature that all persons who became employees of the city of Boston after the establishment of the retirement system should as a part of their employment become members of the system, and that § 32 was designed to accomplish first the repeal of all acts and parts of acts
So ordered.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Martin A. Fulton v. City of Boston
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published