Jett v. Jones

Supreme Court of Georgia

Jett v. Jones

9 S.E.2d 239, 190 Ga. 361, 1940 Ga. LEXIS 460

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 23, 1940

Docket13197.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 S.E.2d 239 (Jett v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jett v. Jones, 9 S.E.2d 239, 190 Ga. 361, 1940 Ga. LEXIS 460 (Ga. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Justice.

The widow of a police officer of. the City of Atlanta filed a suit against the Trustees of the Police Officers? Pension Eund, seeking the writ of mandamus to require payment of a, monthly sum alleged to be due to the plaintiff as a pensioner under an act of the General Assembly of 1925 (Ga. L. 1925, pp. 228-234). The defendants filed an answer denying the plaintiff’s right to the relief, on various grounds. At the conclusion of the evidence the court directed a verdict in favor ' of the defendants, and the plaintiff excepted. Held:

(а) It appearing from the evidence, without dispute, that for the period covered by the suit the plaintiff received under a subsequent statute (Ga. L. 1933, p. 213) more from the pension fund than the defendants could lawfully have paid to her under the act of 1925, the'court did not err in directing the verdict in favor of the defendants. On principle the case is controlled adversely to the plaintiff by the decision of this court in Hollis v. Jones, 187 Ga. 14 (199 S. E. 203).

(б) The foregoing conclusion is not altered by the fact that an actuary testified that the net balance in the hands of the defendants at the end of each year after the passage of the act of 1933 included the balance carried forward from the fund as it existed under the act of 1925. This statement of the witness clearly related only to the matter of bookkeeping through a period of years, and did not tend to rebut the testimony of the secretary of the board of trustees, based upon a statement of facts given by him, to the effect that the plaintiff “has now received under the new act more than twice as much as she would have received ■ under the old act, if she had. elected to come under it rather than to come under the new act.”

(c) Since the judgment must be affirmed for the reason indicated, no ruling is necessary as to whether the plaintiff should be held concluded by an election to claim under the act of 1933, or as to whether any other ground of defense was established by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bell, Justice.

The widow of a police officer of. the City of Atlanta filed a suit against the Trustees of the Police Officers? Pension Eund, seeking the writ of mandamus to require payment of a, monthly sum alleged to be due to the plaintiff as a pensioner under an act of the General Assembly of 1925 (Ga. L. 1925, pp. 228-234). The defendants filed an answer denying the plaintiff’s right to the relief, on various grounds. At the conclusion of the evidence the court directed a verdict in favor ' of the defendants, and the plaintiff excepted. Held:

(а) It appearing from the evidence, without dispute, that for the period covered by the suit the plaintiff received under a subsequent statute (Ga. L. 1933, p. 213) more from the pension fund than the defendants could lawfully have paid to her under the act of 1925, the'court did not err in directing the verdict in favor of the defendants. On principle the case is controlled adversely to the plaintiff by the decision of this court in Hollis v. Jones, 187 Ga. 14 (199 S. E. 203).

(б) The foregoing conclusion is not altered by the fact that an actuary testified that the net balance in the hands of the defendants at the end of each year after the passage of the act of 1933 included the balance carried forward from the fund as it existed under the act of 1925. This statement of the witness clearly related only to the matter of bookkeeping through a period of years, and did not tend to rebut the testimony of the secretary of the board of trustees, based upon a statement of facts given by him, to the effect that the plaintiff “has now received under the new act more than twice as much as she would have received ■ under the old act, if she had. elected to come under it rather than to come under the new act.”

(c) Since the judgment must be affirmed for the reason indicated, no ruling is necessary as to whether the plaintiff should be held concluded by an election to claim under the act of 1933, or as to whether any other ground of defense was established by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 S.E.2d 239, 190 Ga. 361, 1940 Ga. LEXIS 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jett-v-jones-ga-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack