Kleiner v. City of Milwaukee

• Decision Date: 01 June 1955
• Citation: 270 Wis. 152,70 N.W.2d 662
• Parties: Helen KLEINER, Appellant, v. CITY OF MILWAUKEE, and Municipal Corporation, Respondent.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 662

70 N.W.2d 662

270 Wis. 152

Helen KLEINER, Appellant, v. CITY OF MILWAUKEE, and Municipal Corporation, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 1, 1955.

Clyde M. Paust, Milwaukee, for appellant.

Walter J. Mattison, City Atty., George A. Bowman, Jr., Cornelius J. Merten, Asst. City Attys., Milwaukee, for respondent.

Quarles, Spence & Quarles, Milwaukee, Kenneth Grubb, W. J. Roper and Robert F. Boden, Milwaukee, Amicus Curiae.

BROADFOOT, Justice.

The plaintiff contends that retroactive legislation of a remedial nature is not repugnant to the constitution. She claims further that the purpose of the legislation was remedial or procedural. On the other hand, it is contended that a retroactive law which impairs the obligation of a contract or which interferes with vested rights is unconstitutional as a taking of property without due process of law.

The issue to be resolved is whether ch. 397 is remedial or procedural legislation, or whether it is a retroactive law that impairs the obligation of a contract or interferes with vested rights. Reference will be made herein to the following constitutional and statutory provisions:

Art. I, § 12, Wis. Const.: 'No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.'

Art. IV, § 26, Wis. Const.: 'The legislature shall never grant any extra compensation to any public officer, agent, servant or contractor, after the services shall have been rendered or the contract entered into; nor shall the compensation of any public officer be increased or diminished during his term of office.'

Section 102.03(4), Stats.: 'The right to compensation and the amount thereof shall in all cases be determined in accordance with the provisions of law in effect as of the date of the injury.'

Section 102.07(2), Stats.: 'Any policman or fireman claiming compensation shall have deducted from such compensation any sum which such policeman or fireman may receive from any pension or other benefit fund to which the municipality may contribute; provided further that any other peace officer shall be considered an employe while engaged in the enforcement of peace or in the pursuit and capture of those charged with crime.'

The latter section of the statute has been upheld by this court in two cases: Lenfesty v. City of Eau Claire, 245 Wis. 220, 13 N.W.2d 903; Columbia Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission, 254 Wis. 310, 35 N.W.2d 904. Section 102.03(4), although a fairly recent enactment, is merely a restatement of the law as declared by this court in Tiffany v. Industrial Commission, 225 Wis. 187, 273 N.W. 519.

In State ex rel. Smith v. Annuity & Pension Board of City of Milwaukee, 241 Wis. 625, 6 N.W.2d 676, it was held by this court that the rights of a retiring employee beneficiary, compulsorily retired on account of age, were contractual and his status and rights as a beneficiary were to be determined under the provisions of the system as it existed at the time of his retirement, and legislation was declared invalid that attempted to require the payment of an increased retirement allowance to persons who were formerly active members of the retirement system on the ground that it required the city of Milwaukee to appropriate public funds for a private purpose when applied to an...