*1 503 others, and v. Respondent. Appellants, State, Jenkins
April May 5— *4 For the there were briefs Previant appellants by Goldberg, Milwaukee, & Richard Cooper and oral argument by M. Goldberg.
For the the cause was E. Weston respondent argued by Wood, assistant with whom on the attorney brief general, was John W. general. Reynolds, attorney
Broadfoot, to the By demurring de complaint J. all fendant well admitted facts therein but it pleaded not admit did conclusions of law nor did it admit erroneous
508 the even drawn from such facts by
conclusions pleader conclusions bear the semblance statements the of though State, v. 173 Wis. of facts. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co. Life 468, 119, Ortell, 138; v. 264 59 180 N. W. Olsen Wis. N. W. (2d) state, enter into con- may
The various through agencies, into, and, the tracts with individuals when entered properly are the as those state’s duties thereunder same and rights a The recites that the of private person. complaint plaintiffs a con- and the whom to had they allege represent persons the of the tract the state Board of with through Regents virtue of certain resolutions by adopted by State Colleges The the and services thereto. by performing board pursuant that a contract seems to indicate this was complaint single the nor 133 individuals. Neither body complaint with into, the the resolutions state when contract was entered were, date, the termination and other what the terms thereof in be actions for breach of contract. facts that should pleaded facts to show in what Nor does the complaint allege any was breached. The alleges manner the contract complaint 1956, 1, the July a resolution effective board by adopted that in that be the future and a new to salary policy applicable canceled earned rights these new resolutions employment of and all sum- under the old contract canceled employment These con- mer earned thereto. pursuant allegations, leave III, the numbered are based in upon tained paragraph law from the resolutions. conclusions of drawn pleader’s the resolutions are insufficient The with together allegations There that any state a cause of is no allegation to action.. after teachers received a smaller salary July.l, the before, nor is that allegation any than he received there any in refused a summer leave without reduction teacher was 1165 as only indicating We can resolution interpret pay. and those whom to they allege represent that plaintiffs *6 each had a summer leave or were extra for paid in teaching a summer session to subsequent July
Thus the is in complaint deficient that it does not state a cause of action and that it does not state facts to indicate that of the claimants any was as a result damaged of the new adoption salary policy. Without an allegation that salaries were reduced as a result of the new there policy could be no whether a damage teacher received the amount of his in 10 salary instalments or in 12.
In numbered V it paragraph is that the unilateral alleged action of the board also had the effect of an initial canceling salary which deficiency had resulted from the of practice two fifths of withholding the first month’s and which salary was traditionally paid retirement or upon severance em- of Nowhere ployment. are there any to allegations indicate that there was ever an initial the salary deficiency or withholding of a two fifths of first month’s The extract from salary. the Handbook Faculty indicated that teachers who commenced their services in the fall teaching semester on began work 12th. were September They from that paid date. That hand- book was in dated 1953 when all teachers were hired on an annual basis. There no is that after allegation completing one full of services year teacher had not any received his entire annual salary. The in allegations contained the com- in this plaint do not show respect breach any of contract or to any damage of the claimants. resulting any
Without how or there is a stating why, conclusion of law in stated IV and V that the in paragraphs the change salary 1, 1956, effective resulted in policy July some forfeiture of the triennial leave earned to the as prior well as of change reimbursement for two a fifths of month’s that was salary retirement or traditionally paid upon severance of employ- ment. It is that if one of the claimants possible had severed of his because the in employment the change salary policy have had some claim the state. the board he against might not, however, that issue. It is not before do pass We upon It clear the that the claimants us. is from none of complaint his is in the retired severed It stated has or employment. the three named and those whom that complaint plaintiffs claim members faculty employed by to were they represent action in at the time of the commencement of the the state March, 1960. the stated we with the trial
For reasons above court agree that it the face of the that same complaint appears upon not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. does *7 therefore, the It is not to other necessary, pass upon grounds the demurrer. for the affirmed. judgment Court.—Order and
By It me seems clear to that (concurring). Fairchild, J. taught 1953, 1, 12, a to teacher who from September July arrived, 1956, had, latter a full three the date earned when it had all of one fifth of salary and received years’ except the payment plan, payment one Under old year’s salary. in this one been made the August, of fifth would have Sep- tember, the and the instalments. Under new of October part fifth received as salary this one was payment plan, part Thus, a the academic 1956—1957. ostensibly year for paid at the sum teacher was stated same total for salary whose as for the year the nine-month academic 1956-1957 previous salary twelve-month did not receive the same for really year the nine months the academic 1956-1957 year teaching he for the full The year. as did his services during previous me, it seems to fails to that teacher allege any complaint, to a contract receive the same had represented by plaintiffs for academic as year total sum the nine-month 1956—1957 the twelve-month year. for previous been, that have a It seems there as matter probable may a unfair discrimination between teacher of personnel policy, for hired newly 1956-1957 academic year who had no accrued vacation and rights teachers represented by plain- tiffs who did have such accrued if the former rights, were hired at the same stated and had the salary same qualifica- Plaintiffs, tions as the latter. however, have not alleged facts to show that such treatment violated contract. any Highway Appellant,
Nick, Commission, v. State Respondent.* April May 5—
* denied, costs, Motion rehearing for without on October