*1 of art fabulous works to see the reputedly a chance orbit of come within might otherwise Foundation in Barnes Justice enjoyment. its Kephart, rule that a general v . said: “It is supra, Keely, dis is within affairs management corporate officers of the corporation, cretion proper not to be interfered this when abused is discretion in his Com . . .” The plaintiff protests, however, with. in the Board Trus the discretion vested plaint is abused. being teеs Kephart in further that same decision:
Justice said public “Reasonable admission regulations of a destroy gift do not the charitable nature where the Bill of it otherwise found to be so.” But Com- the Board regulations impоsed by avers that plaint are unreasonable. And if alleged of Trustees the facts are are con- we plaintiff true, required, them true, lower sidering action, accept my justified court not, opinion, dismissing the Bill. Allegheny County, Board
Baker v. Appellant.
Argued March 1953. 30, Before C. J., Stern, Jones, Chidsey, Musmanno Stearns, JJ. Arnold, No. Appeal, 80, P.
John for appellant. Hester, John A. him with John A. for Metz, Jr., ap- Metz, pellee.
Opinion Mr. Justice June 1, 1953: Musmanno, September On Walter ter- 24, 1928, Bakеr, having minated 20 years policeman service as a City applied to the Police Pension Fund Associa- Pittsburgh, for City tion of the him. Pittsburgh pension due pension was awarded became effective as of January 1,1929.
On October Baker became an 1, employe 1928, in the of a court County Allegheny capacity pay officer. As a he made county employe regular ments into the from October, Fund He now ap 1928 until June when he retired. to the Retirement Board plied Allegheny County but his denied county allowance, request on basis the Amendment to the Retirement Act, March approved by Governor 191, §12 326) P.S. such (16 prohibited allowance. That amend ment provides: . . no Hereafter at the person who, time of his as a employment employe, receiving or is eligible to receive retirement allowance Commonwealth of or any other Pennsylvania, pоlitical subdivision shall be a retire- thereof, eligible receive *3 ment allowance from the county system.”
An amicable action in Mandamus was instituted, matter was before a argued court en banc in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny appeal аn County, was taken to this Court from the decision of the lower court which ordered the Retirement Board to make monthly payments to Baker in accordance with the original Act.
The only question before us, is whether therefore, the 1937 Amendment, enacted almost nine years after Baker became a county employe and had begun his payments into the retirement fund, retroactive to October thus 1, 1928, barring to county retire- ment allowance.
The language act is amendatory prospective in that it provides that no person at who, “Hereafter the time his employment as a county employe, is receiving or is eligible to receive retirement allowance from . . . any political other subdivision . . . shall be eligible receive, etc.”
“Time of employment” can only have two possible meanings: (1) date or original employment; (2). of time thаt an endures. It can employment
quantum thé mean the date of specific date subsequent If instance, for original undertaking job. one, from Jan- who had been at a employed particular place uary requirеd 1900 to December were 1, “Time of indicate an the simple question: answer after he could answer Employment?” “January 1, 1900,” or “Ten common years.” He could or logic sense, not, offer in 1900 and January answer date between 1, consid- December the statute before us for 31,1909. it is clear that “time of eration, noonday employment” means the date of original undertaking which, was October job, 1,1928. case, Art. IV 56, Statutory Section Construction Act of that: “No declares 1.019, specifically law shall construed to be retroactive unless clearly intended manifestly so Legislature.” Act same Sec. 46 P.S. (Art. V, 573), to the construction of referring amendatory says laws, that “the shall provisions new be construed as effective only from the date when the amendment effec- becáme tive.” The amendment under consideration could not taken possibly effect to March prior 31, 1937; thеn Walter Baker had employed by County of Allegheny eight years. over is a' fundamental rule of construction statutory that the Legislature presumed to have intended to *4 the violate Constitution of the United States or the Pеnnsylvania Commonwealth of Construc (Statutory tion Art. Sec. 56 Act, (46 P.S. To into IV, 556). read the Amendment of 1937 a retroactivity to 1928 would be to take it out of the orbit of our Constitution which the of law prohibits passage “impairing obliga of of (Const. tion .contracts.” Art. Pennsylvania, I, 17.) sec. in
When legislation question was passed, appellee : .member already of, had. ..a. had to, contributed nine for approximately retirement fund County basis of the He madе these contributions on the years. provisions eligibility existing rules, regulations for retirement As of the time he joined allowance. his therein, continued fund, membership the same rules and at the time of regulations existing his and vested. сomplete legisla- employment, ture could not thereafter alter the constitutionally pro- visions contract of membership. existing in His the fund rights could mutual only changed by consent: Marshall v. Pilots 55 A. 206 Pa. Assn., In 916. this Court held that casе, by-laws a non-profit corporation constituted the contract which created the rights of the parties that a substantial change by-laws could not adversely affect the rights of one who “had contributed his due share of earnings to make the relief fund up of the association” down to the time of his We disability. also said that “when plaintiff’s to a rights special benefit accrued according to such became contraсt, they fixed and thereafter could only be changed by mutual consent.” In the instant case, legislature could no more effectuate a unilateral in change appellee’s contract of than the membership non-profit corporation could in the Marshall case.
The appellant here cites Retirement Board Alle gheny et County Pa. as author McGovern, al., 1316 ity for the proposition that Baker’s in rights 1937 under system wеre inchoate and not vested. But the reference to “inchoate” that decision must be considered with the rest of Justice Keph art’s opinion. showing that the rights of an employe to participate the bеnefits of a retirement system may be taken away from him, once he has entered into the retirement Keph system, Justice art considered, the Retirement illustration, Acts relating (p. 171) judges: all “When, bring employees under onе general retirement system, the inducement was of- *5 officers elected under
fered to and other judges public sys- retirement the Constitution to join employes’ retirement com- certain tem and their give up the Acts possessed pensation, right they part 1911 and 1919 was vested. This vested was right officers (Busser of their constitutional salaries as joining it in the ease of a judge Snyder, supra); was, made carried employees’ retirement over system, This system. retirement part еmployees’ state capitalized, vested to annual right payments, presently funds. system’s added value to the reserve necessary the re- was that member’s' then contribution to present he and had tirement fund as the Stаte just though it for the contributed year by year years required under the ... What we have system. service said here as to such constitutional officers is the same to. other in that employees class, officers where аcts were existence at the time of prior of the existent Retirement the extent passage Acts to that such might provided by acts.” (Emphasis supplied)
In the case of Kane v. Policemen’s 336 Pa. Fund, a Pittsburgh policeman retired entitled to pension City obtained Pittsburgh, employment, as Chief of Police of Mt. In Lebanon. 1935 a statute enacted (May 233) was provided: of the fund beneficiary' may who obtain “Any employ- ment in the of the city serviсe itself or county or State, any political, or. sub-division shall suffer thereof, suspen- sion of from the fund pension the time of during such' Kane’s employment.” city was pension suspended finder the 1935 but this Court statute, affirmed the Common сon-, Court’s reinstatement pension; Pleas of one-of sidering. argfiment .the parties liti- approved the statement ': gation, Court “The pension- of a of the old .'. member fund ." contract a vested reason contrаct. right, right by It may be *6 he had been an until incomplete that it was inchoate or of twenty for a period of the Bureau of Police employee but it was just been a granted pension, and had years pension a he was awarded as much a vested right before supplied.) as it was afterwards(Emphasis Baker had entered into Once his his were rights and had made first payment, system, the termination much as were at of just as vested thev emplоyment. as divesting To the Amendment 1937 interpret to would be of Baker 1928 acquired obligations. an out-and-out of contractual impairment It the word “Here- to require giving would, moreover, it. after” a attributed to meaning previоusly that can a variety interpreta- is conceded words history on depending circumstance, tions, context, other but there are a juxtaposition to few words words, are immune and retain, regardless which to mutation, rhetorical one “Hereafter” meaning. climate, in the sea of “Hereafter” as language. such a polestar referred to time an was never known to have adverb Unabridged future. Webster’s International but this “After defines word: time or Dictionary future time or some state.” monumental order; 13 Oxford English dictionary, covering volumes, a column the word which devotes almost “hereafter,” from literature down culling quotations through not mention one use of that word in any does con- ages, the future. If the “hereafter” in except nection word a interpreted is ever to mean an or elsewhere event statute the tomb of already has buried the pаst 8 or linguistic or even century chaos is years, upon us. can it be without argued, completely
Nor turning that on the word “hereafter” in grammar, one’s back applies only to the consideration, statute moment has county employe his 20 completed years’ when dis- specifically The statute declares, service. and this cannot obviously “time employment,” cussed, employment.” mean “termination of affirmed. Judgment Opinion
Conсurring Mr. Justice Jones: that limit reason to but specifically my I concur which construes majority opinion portion that its prospective, is, Act here involved apply only intended to to employees inhibitation was employment began subsequent whose *7 of the Act. the passage Harry, Appellant, ex rel.
Commonwealth Eastridge.