Court Opinion

ID: 9662099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:59:29.669379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:36.813775
License: Public Domain

Gehl, J.
(dissenting). We are not at liberty to decide the issues in this case as an original proposition. They were determined in Loomis v. Callahan, 196 Wis. 518, 220 N. W. 816. The majority so concede, but overrule the decision in that case in express terms. A rule of property was there declared, a rule which we should adhere to without regard to how we might be inclined to decide the question if it were new. 21 C. J. S., Courts, p. 396, sec. 216; Wisconsin Power & Light Co. v. Beloit, 215 Wis. 439, 254 N. W. 119; Will of Wehr, 247 Wis. 98, 18 N. W. (2d) 709.
It does not appear that investments have been made by private investors in reliance upon the law declared in Loomis v. Callahan, supra, although it may not be amiss to presume that they have. In any event, it does not appear that reliance has not been placed by investors upon the decision which is now over twenty-five years old. A court should hesitate long before overruling a decision, the result of which is to disturb rights which may have been acquired thereunder or in reliance thereon. During the long period since its pronouncement, the legislature has taken no action to change the rule of that case. True, it could not have changed it by legislative enactment, but if it had been dissatisfied with it, it might *355have set in motion the procedure for a constitutional amendment to effect a change.
It is not as though the attention of the legislature had not been called to the decision. During its 1949 session, Bill No. 491, S., which would create sec. 14.86, Stats., was introduced. Sec. 14.86 provides the heart of the plan here proposed to be followed. The senate requested the attorney general for an opinion as to the constitutionality of the proposed enactment. Relying upon Loomis v. Callahan, supra, the attorney general advised that the bill, if amended in several minor respects, was constitutional. The act was passed.
We should not under the circumstances depart from a rule of property so clearly expressed and for so long a time recognized as being the law.