Miller v. City of Marion

103 N.E.2d 27, 89 Ohio App. 429, 46 Ohio Op. 261, 1950 Ohio App. LEXIS 616
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 10, 1950
Docket1015 and 1016
StatusPublished

This text of 103 N.E.2d 27 (Miller v. City of Marion) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miller v. City of Marion, 103 N.E.2d 27, 89 Ohio App. 429, 46 Ohio Op. 261, 1950 Ohio App. LEXIS 616 (Ohio Ct. App. 1950).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

These are appeals on questions of law by the plaintiffs and the persons other than the plaintiffs, on whose behalf each of the actions is brought, and eross-appeals on questions of law by the defendant..

Case No. 1016 is an action by Hardin to recover from defendant city a balance which he claims is due him for services rendered by him in his employment by the city as a member of its police department during the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937, and for a declaratory judgment, in favor of all -other persons employed by the city as members of its police department during those years, as to the balances due them, respectively, for services rendered during such period of time.

The aggregate amount claimed to be due is $19,-434.57 and interest.

Case No. 1015 is an action by Miller to recover from the defendant city a balance which he claims is due him for services rendered by him in his employment *431 by the city as a member of its fire department during the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937, and for a declaratory judgment, in favor of all the other persons employed by the city as members of its fire department during those years, as to the balances due them, respectively, for services rendered during such period of time.

The aggregate amount claimed to be due is the sum •of $38,706.91, with interest. . u

The action by Hardin was commenced August 6, 1945, and the action by Miller was commenced October 24, 1946. . " .

The city questioned the rights of the named plaintiffs'to institute class suits but later withdrew the objections, with the understanding that each of the several claimants would file in the cause in which his claim was made an authorization directing counsel for the. plaintiff in such cause to proceed with the prosecution of the action on behalf of the persons signing the authorization.. These authorizations were later filed in the respective actions.

• The city pleaded as defenses to the claims that the -persons on whose behalf the actions were brought had waived, in writing,, their, respective claims for com- : pensation; that such claims, are based upon a liability created by statute, and actions thereon are barred six years from the accrual of the causes thereof, under the provisions of Section 11222, General Code; and that the funds derived from the collection and liquidation of delinquent taxes, which plaintiffs assert are subject to- the payment of their claims, were not subjected to the payment of such claims and were expended by the city for other purposes.

The bills of exceptions disclose the following facts:

Large portions of the taxes levied by the city for municipal purposes during the years 1933, 1934. 1935, *432 1936, and 1937, and prior thereto, became delinquent .and could not be collected during those years, and by reason thereof the city, during that period of time, except for the year 1935, had insufficient funds to pay its operating expenses including the salaries of the members of the police and fire departments.

In view of this situation, typewritten waivers were signed and given by each of the plaintiffs for the years mentioned, in which waivers each consented to receive certain amounts less than the compensation each was entitled to under the ordinances of the city.

The amounts alleged to be due represent the differences between the amounts actually received by plaintiffs, as compensation for their services, and the amounts the ordinances prescribed they should be paid.

These waivers for members of both departments were identical in form, the signatures of the members of the police department being affixed to one set of waivers, and the signatures of the members of the fire department being affixed to the other.

The amounts of compensation waived vary to the same extent as the rates of pay fixed by the ordinances for the various persons signing the waivers vary.

The waivers were executed at the solicitation of and on a form suggested by the finance committee of the council of the city and were executed pursuant to negotiation's between the finance committee and the grievance committees of the members of the police and fire departments upon the oral understanding that when sufficient funds were derived by the city from the collection of delinquent taxes the members of each of the departments would be paid the waived portions of their salaries.

The waivers, omitting signatures, were, for the years 1933, 1934, 1936, and 1937, in the following forms:

*433 “Year 1933

“To the Council and Auditor of the City of Marion, Ohio:

“We, the undersigned, employees of the city of Marion, Ohio, desiring to assist in reducing operating costs of said city during the year 1933, hereby voluntarily consent and agree that for our services rendered to said city, beginning January 1, 1933, and ending December 31, 1933, in the respective positions held by us as hereinafter designated, we will accept as full compensation from the said city of Marion for our services such sum per month as we hereinafter respectively designate.

‘ ‘ This proposal and agreement shall be authority of the city council to appropriate funds for payment of our respective salaries in accordance with the amounts herein specified; and we further authorize the auditor of the city of Marion to issue checks to us in payment for our services in the amounts per month hereinafter designated which we hereby agree to accept as full compensation for our respective services as such employees of the city of Marion.”

“First Half Year 1934

“We, the undersigned, employees of the city of Marion, Ohio, desiring to assist in reducing operating cost of said city during the first half of 1934, hereby voluntarily consent and agree that for our services rendered to said city, beginning January 1st, 1934, and ending June 30, 1934, we will take a twenty per cent (20%) reduction in our regular salaries in the respective positions held by us as hereinafter designated, and that we will accept as full compensation from the said city of Marion for our services, such sum per month as we hereinafter respectively designate.

*434 “This proposal and agreement shall be authority of the city council to appropriate funds for payment of onr respective salaries in accordance with the amounts herein specified; and we farther authorize the auditor of the city of Marion to issue checks to us in payment for our services in the amounts per month hereinafter designated which we hereby ■ agree to accept as full ■ compensation for our respective services as such employees of the city of Marion, Ohio.

“It is further understood and agreed; that in the event the finances of the city of Marion, become such as to enable the payment of over eighty per cent (80%) of our regular salaries, then in such event, it is hereby agreed, that such payment of k higher per cent shall be paid.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 N.E.2d 27, 89 Ohio App. 429, 46 Ohio Op. 261, 1950 Ohio App. LEXIS 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-city-of-marion-ohioctapp-1950.