BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FIRE-MEN'S RELIEF & PENSION FUND v. NAUGHTON

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FIRE-MEN'S RELIEF & PENSION FUND v. NAUGHTON
1937 OK 271
68 P.2d 845
180 Okla. 270
Case Number: 26545
Decided: 04/27/1937
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

BD. OF TRUSTEES OF THE FIREMEN'S RELIEF
v.
NAUGHTON

Syllabus

¶0 1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS - Laws Providing for Firemen's Pensions Liberally Construed.
The purpose of laws for firemen's pensions is beneficial, and such statutes should be liberally construed in favor of those to be benefited. In re Benson, 178 Okla. 299, 62 P.2d 962.
2. SAME - Right of Appeal to District Court From Decision of Firemen's Pension Board.
The provisions of section 6102, O. S. 1931, relating to appeal from a decision of the firemen's pension board, are applicable to the persons designated in section 6103, O. S. 1931, and may be properly invoked by them.
3. SAME - SCOPE OF REVIEW - Disposition of Cause.
On appeal from a decision of the firemen's pension and relief board, the district court in considering the appeal reviews the transcript of the proceedings and the evidence to ascertain whether the decision of the board is in accordance with law and whether its findings are supported by the evidence. If, upon such review, it appears that the decision of the board is contrary to law or contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, the district court may properly render such decision as should have been rendered by said board.

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Thurman S. Hurst, Judge.

Appeal from a judgment of the district court in favor of Vena B. Naughton, reversing the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Firemen's Relief and Pension Fund of the City of Tulsa. Affirmed.

H.O. Bland, E.M. Gallaher and Milton W. Hardy, for plaintiff in error.
T.L. Brown and J.F. Lawrence, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This action originated before the board of trustees of the firemen's relief and pension fund in and for the city of Tulsa. Vena B. Naughton filed an application with said board for a widow's pension under the ordinances of the city of Tulsa and the statutes of this state (section 21, art. 2, Revised Ordinances City of Tulsa, 1931, and section 6103, O. S. 1931). Said application was denied by the pension board and an appeal was prosecuted to the district court of Tulsa county, where the order of the pension board was reversed and the pension ordered paid. The board of trustees of the firemen's relief and pension fund in and for the city of Tulsa appeal. As grounds for reversal it is urged that the appeal from the decision of the pension board is not authorized by law, and that the district court did not properly determine the matter on appeal, and that the record contains ample evidence to sustain the decision of the pension board, and that the judgment of the trial court was erroneous as a matter of law. The questions thus presented are substantially the same as those presented and decided in the case of In re Benson, 178 Okla. 299, 62 P.2d 962, and Board of Trustees of Firemen's Relief and Pension Fund of Oklahoma City v. Edith Pelham, 180 Okla. 44, 67 P.2d 794,, and what has been said therein is decisive of the matters involved in this appeal. It appears that the district court in considering the matter on appeal was guided by the opinion of this court in the case of In re Gruber, 89 Okla. 148, 214 P. 690. This was proper. The district court was not bound to accept the decision of the pension board as conclusive upon questions of fact involved. The court on an appeal of this nature is authorized to review the transcript to ascertain whether there has occurred any error of law, and also to determine whether the findings of the board are supported by the evidence. If from the record it appears that the decision of the board is either contrary to the law or contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, the district court may render such decision as should have been rendered. The record in this case, in our opinion, amply supports the judgment.

¶2 Judgment affirmed.