105 P.2d 406 | Colo. | 1940
THIS is a suit under the Declaratory Judgments Act to have determined whether, under the facts alleged, plaintiff, a school teacher, is entitled to a pension under sections 250-254, chapter 146, '35 C.S.A. Trial was to the court, upon the conclusion of which, judgment was entered for plaintiff. We shall hereinafter refer to plaintiffs in error as the district and to defendant in error as plaintiff. Plaintiff admits that the statement of facts as set out in the brief of the district are substantially correct; but the inferences to be derived therefrom and their legal effect are in dispute. Briefly, the facts are as follows:
November 14, 1934, and some time prior thereto, plaintiff possessed the qualifications which would have entitled her to a pension. On that date she was dismissed by the district, which followed the procedure later held to be invalid in the case of Roe v. Hanington,
The district, in its assignments of error, challenges the finding of the trial court to the effect that the release of the pension claims by plaintiff, under the facts, was void, and that its acceptance by members of the district board was "grossly in excess of their power and authority."
[1] That the law favors compromises and settlements of disputed claims is generally recognized. West v. Wegeforth,
[2-5] In this state municipal corporations "may sue or be sued." '35 C.S.A., c. 163, § 8; People ex rel. v.County Commissioners,
The judgment is reversed and the case remanded, with directions to dismiss the complaint. *361