Case ID: so2d_124/html/0031-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PEARSON, Acting Chief Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Clyde FUTCH, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, H. V. Carlton, Ira Willard, Jim Hurley, R. F. Helken, J. F. Hukle and W. P. Moody, being members of the City of Miami General Employees’ Retirement Plan, and the Miami City General Employees Retirement Plan, Appellees.
    No. 59-770.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
    Nov. 3, 1960.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1960.
    William W. Charles, Miami, for appellant.
    Olavi M. Hendrickson, City Atty., and Charles K. Allan, Asst. City Atty., Miami, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., J., and ODOM, ARCHIE M., Associate Judge, concur.

PEARSON, Acting Chief Judge, dissents.

PEARSON, Acting Chief Judge

(dissenting).

The appellant as plaintiff brought an action for a declaratory decree against the city and its board of general employees retirement fund. His complaint was dismissed ‘‘with prejudice” after trial. The prayer of the complaint was twofold: 1) that the court determine whether his discharge was valid; 2) that the court determine whether he was entitled under the City of Miami general employees retirement system to benefits for retirement by virtue of an injury received in line of duty.

It is my view that the chancellor should have entered a declaratory decree upon the-subject of the retirement benefits. Cf. Rosenhouse v. 1950 Spring Term Grand. Jury, Fla.1952, 56 So.2d 445; Platt v. General Development Corporation, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So.2d 48, 50; North Shore Realty Corporation v. Gallaher, Fla.App. 1957, 99 So.2d 255, 256. See as to pension rights-after discharge. Holcomb v. Hamm, 77 N.D. 154, 42 N.W.2d 70; Creighan v. City of Pittsburgh, 389 Pa. 569, 132 A.2d 867.