Inglis v. Public School Emp. Retirement Bd.

• Decision Date: 02 November 1964
• Docket Number: No. 15,15
• Citation: 131 N.W.2d 54,374 Mich. 10
• Parties: Ada INGLIS, Plaintiff, v. The PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT BOARD, Lynn Bartlett, as Superintendent of Public Instruction, Sanford A. Brown, as State Treasurer, State of Michigan, jointly and severally, Defendants.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 54

131 N.W.2d 54

374 Mich. 10

Ada INGLIS, Plaintiff, v.The PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT BOARD, Lynn Bartlett as Superintendent of Public Instruction, Sanford A. Brown, as State Treasurer, State of Michigan, jointly and severally, Defendants.

No. 15.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Nov. 2, 1964.

Roscoe O. Bonisteel, Roscoe O. Bonisteel, Jr., Ann Arbor, for plaintiff.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol.Gen., Eugene Krasicky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lansing, for defendants.

Before the Entire Bench.

ADAMS, Justice.

Plaintiff, a retiree under the school employees' retirement system, seeks mandamus to compel defendants to follow P.A.1945, No. 136, as amended(C.L.1948 & C.L.S.1961, § 38.201 et seq. [Stat.Ann.1959 Rev. & Stat.Ann.1963, Cum.Supp. § 15.893(1) et seq.]), the act under which she receives her retirement allowance, in determining amounts to be appropriated to the retirement fund out of the school aid fund.

Plaintiff contends that defendant board should disregard the provisions of P.A.1957, No. 312, § 3a, as added by P.A.1962, No. 221 (C.L.1948, § 388.613a [Stat.Ann.1963 Cum.Supp. § 15.1919 (53a)]), andP.A.1962, No. 230, § 24, on the ground that the latter are unconstitutional because the titles do not express the purpose of amending the 1945 act.* Plaintiff does not allege that the benefits paid and to be paid to her as a present and future retiree will be adversely affected and makes no claim that her retirement allowance is in arrears.To the contrary, in her complaint she states:

'Upon information and belief, that the defendants herein have no desire to deny to this plaintiff the sums to which she is legally entitled.'

The first question presented is whether the plaintiff has standing to seek mandamus inasmuch as her allegations fail to show that she would be adversely affected.In Michigan LawandPractice, Vol. 1, Action, p. 108, it is stated:

'In accordance with the generally approved definition of 'cause of action,' as consisting of plaintiff's right and defendant's wrong, it is necessary to give rise to a cause of action that there be a violation of some positive legal right, or the breach of a legal duty resulting in damage to plaintiff.'(Emphasis added)

In 1 C.J.S.Actions§ 10, p. 993, it is stated:

'A cause or right of action does not arise for the refusal or discontinuance of * * * a public duty which does not inflict special injury on plaintiff.'

In the case of Child v. Emerson, 102 Mich. 38, 60 N.W. 292, where the plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought an action for slander of a business which was the sole property of the wife, and in which the only interest of the husband was that of an employee whose compensation would be determined by the amount of the profits, it was held that such interest of the husband did not entitle him to join with the owner in an action for injury to the business.In that case the compensation of the employee was directly related to the profits of the business, which, presumably, could be affected by a slander.In this casethe plaintiff has attempted no showing whatsoever of injury...