Court Opinion

ID: 9663683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:47:26.932455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:54.901539
License: Public Domain

Adams, J.
(dissenting). I agree with Justice Souris that a writ of mandamus should not be granted but that this Court, as on a writ of certiorari, should in its discretion review the questions of law.
I agree that the relationship of the parties was a contractual one, and, with Justice Souris, that the specific contract each of the plaintiffs entered into was the retirement act as it read .at the time each plaintiff became a member of the retirement system. I do not agree with Justice Souris that the contractual rights and obligations of the plaintiffs must be determined on the basis of the judge’s retirement act  as it read when each plaintiff became a member of the retirement system. The parties could amend their contract. Such amendments are initiated by
*200the legislature whenever it amends the retirement act; Plaintiffs must be deemed to have accepted the 1956 amendment (PA 1956, No 224) by reason of their failure to reject it and because the amendment was beneficial to plaintiffs. Each plaintiff’s contract was finalized upon his retirement. However, I agree with Justice Souris that the legislature could, as a matter of grace, increase payments after a judge had retired and could also eliminate any such increase in the payments.
I agree with Justice Black that:
“The final clause appearing in the form of agreement signed by plaintiffs is wholly void for want of ■authority in the retirement act for inclusion thereof in the required ‘agreement.’ ”