Case Name: People, ex rel. Thomas T. Freeman, v. Board of Police Pension Fund Commissioners of the City of Chicago
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1904-10-04
Citations: 116 Ill. App. 252
Docket Number: Gen. No. 11,317
Parties: People, ex rel. Thomas T. Freeman, v. Board of Police Pension Fund Commissioners of the City of Chicago.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 252–253

Head Matter:
People, ex rel. Thomas T. Freeman, v. Board of Police Pension Fund Commissioners of the City of Chicago.
Gen. No. 11,317.
This case is controlled by the decision in McGann v. Harris, 114 Ill. App. 308.
, Mandamus proceeding. Error to the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Charles G. Neely, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1903.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed October 4, 1904.
Walter F. Heinemann, for plaintiff in error.
William D. Barge, for defendant in error; Edgar Bronson Tolman, Corporation Counsel, of counsel.

Opinion:
Mr. Presiding Justice Stein
delivered the opinion of the court.
The trial court sustained a general demurrer to, and dismissed the petition of plaintiff in error for a writ of mandamus against defendant in error, directing it to pay a police pension, to which he claimed to be entitled under the provisions of chapter 24 of the Rev. Stat., section 391, et seq. Plaintiff has sued out this writ of error for a review of the record of proceedings. Without setting forth the petition, it is sufficient to say that its allegations are substautially the same as in McGann v. Harris, 114 Ill. App. 308, where a mandamus was sought against defendant in error for the same purpose as here. From the petition at bar it appears—as it did in that case'—that plaintiff in error did not present his application for a police pension to defendant in error until after his discharge from the force.
In McGann v. Harris, supra, we held that under the wording of the act, the application must be made while the applicant is still a member of the police force, and we see no reason for changing or modifying our views. The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.