(dissenting). I agree with my Brother’s statement that:
“The obvious intention of the legislature in enacting section 27n of the employment security act was to prevent duplication of benefits to the unemployed who receive workmen’s compensation benefits. In doing so, the legislature made certain classifications of persons.”
I disagree, however, with his conclusion that in carrying out that intention the legislature by unreasonable classification and denial of equal protection of the laws violated the Michigan and the United States Constitutions.
No one disputes the fact that each and every person within each classification is treated alike. Section 27n* provides uniformity in its operation within each classification.
This Court recognized the legislature’s right to consider duplication and supplemental income in *595Bolles v. Employment Security Commission (1960), 361 Mich 378, where we held (quoting syllabus 1):
“The intent of the employment security act is not to supply anyone a supplemental income but rather to furnish protection against the hazard of involuntary unemployment through the systematic accumulation of funds during employment to be disbursed to the involuntarily unemployed in times of need, to maintain purchasing power and to limit the serious social consequences of relief assistance (CL 1948, §421.2).” (Emphasis ours.)
"We held in Lawrence Baking Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Commission (1944), 308 Mich 198, that the basis for classification need not be established on any overwhelming distinction, and in determining that the qualification for benefits in that case was constitutional, this Court stated (p 212):
“All employers who are similarly affected ‘because of a labor dispute’ are treated alike. Under the amendment, as construed, employees are disqualified if the labor dispute results in a stoppage of the employer’s work, and they are not disqualified if the labor dispute does not result in such stoppage. This is a reasonable means of determining qualification for benefits and does not result in arbitrary or unjust discrimination between employers. * * * The wisdom or impolicy of such decision belongs to the legislative, and not to the judicial, department of the government.”
Appellant’s request that we reverse the circuit court of Wayne county has been granted by my Brother because those in one classification are granted benefits that are denied to those in another clas.sification, thus making the classifications unreasonable.
*596The fact that one classification is favored over another does not justify the conclusion that the enactment is unconstitutional and this fact is emphasized in Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co. (1937), 301 US 495 (57 S Ct 868, 81 L ed 1245), where, in rejecting the contention that the Alabama compensation law was unconstitutional, the Court stated (pp 519, 520):
“Appellees [employers] again challenge the tax by attacking as arbitrary the classification adopted by the legislature for the distribution of unemployment benefits. Only the employees of those subject to the tax share in the benefits. Appellees complain that the relief is withheld from many as deserving as those who receive benefits. The choice of beneficiaries, like the selection of the subjects of the tax, is thus said to be so arbitrary and discriminatory as to infringe the Fourteenth Amendment and deprive the statute of any public purpose.
“What we have said as to the validity of the choice of the subjects of the tax is applicable in large measure to the choice of beneficiaries of the relief. In establishing a system of unemployment benefits the legislature is not bound to occupy the whole field. It may strike at the evil where it is most felt [citing cases], or where it is most practicable to deal with it, Dominion Hotel Company v. Arizona, 249 US 265, 268, 269 (39 S Ct 273, 63 L ed 597). It may exclude others whose need is less [citing cases], or whose effective aid is attended by inconvenience which is greater, Dominion Hotel Company v. Arizona, supra. * * *
“As we cannot say that these considerations did not lead to the selection of the classes of employees entitled to unemployment benefits, and as a state of facts may reasonably be conceived which would support the selection, its constitutionality must be sustained,”
*597The conclusion that the classifications were unreasonable was not shared by the referee in this case, as is disclosed by the following from his decision affirming redetermination:
“It is my belief that it is clear and unambiguous; that it was incorporated in the act for a definite purpose and to correct abuses which had prevailed in the past.”
Claiming that section 27n provides reasonable classification and commenting upon the problems of administration to provide otherwise because claimant’s request must be determined on a weekly basis, the attorney general in behalf of the Michigan employment security commission states:
“The second and subsidiary class differentiates between individuals who, on one hand, are paid specific workmen’s compensation loss benefits and lump sum settlements, and those who, on the other hand, obtain benefits over an extended period of time allocable to specific weeks. The classifications are based on natural distinguishing characteristics. The basis for the first classification is the avoidance of duplicate payments for wage loss for the same period; while the basis for the subsidiary classification is the fact that the individuals of the first group receive their workmen’s compensation benefits in lump sum and in advance, which payments are not readily allocable; while those of the second group receive their benefits over an extended period of time allocable to specific weeks, which benefits tend to be larger in the aggregate. * * *
“The Michigan legislature chose to make the nature of the payment the distinguishing characteristic between a disqualifying payment and a nondisqualifying one. This was apparently done because those who receive workmen’s compensation benefits on a weekly basis need unemployment compensation less or to a lesser degree than those who receive lump sum redemptions some time, or even years, before *598they became unemployed. As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Carmichael, supra, the distinction can be grounded on need or on the inherent administrative problems which may be involved.”
In deciding this question we apply guidance set forth in Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Company (1911), 220 US 61, 78, 79 (31 S Ct 337, 55 L Ed 369), as follows:
“1. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not take from the State the power to classify in the adoption of police laws, but admits of the exercise of a wide scope of discretion in that regard, and avoids what is done only when it is without any reasonable basis and therefore is purely arbitrary.
“2. A classification having some reasonable basis does not offend against that clause merely because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.
“3. When the classification in such a law is called in question, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, the existence of that state of facts at the time the law was enacted must be assumed.
“4. One who assails the classification in such a law must carry the burden of showing that it does not rest upon any reasonable basis, but is essentially arbitrary.”
We conclude that section 27n did not violate either the Michigan or the United States Constitutions.
In addition to the unreasonable classification question, appellant also contends that his right to workmen’s compensation benefits vested at the date of-injury and the application of section 27n deprives him of property without due process of law, constituting an impairment of the obligation of contract *599and, also, that the circuit court erred in applying section 27n retroactively.
The unemployment compensation law of this State in 1955 when plaintiff was granted his workmen’s compensation benefits, did not have the section 27n provision reducing weekly unemployment benefits by the amount of workmen’s compensation benefits claimant would be receiving during the same week.
In Cassar v. Employment Security Commission (1955), 343 Mich 380, 412, we said:
“The legislature has prescribed the terms and conditions under which unemployment benefits may be received and has imposed conditions with which plaintiffs have not complied. The right to benefits rests wholly on the statute.”
In Peplinski v. Employment Security Commission (1960), 359 Mich 665, 668, we stated:
“The benefits in question [unemployment compensation benefits] do not accrue in the course of the common law but have their ‘roots in legislative enactments;’ which enactments prescribe both the nature of the benefits and the remedies to be pursued in their effectuation.” (Emphasis ours.)
Section 57 of the Michigan employment security act prohibits the acquisition of vested or contractual rights to unemployment compensation benefits by providing:
“All the rights, privileges or immunities conferred under or by virtue of the provisions of this act, or acts done pursuant thereto, shall exist subject to the power of amendment or repeal of this act by the legislature.” CL 1948, § 421.57 (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.561).
*600Eligibility for benefits under the act is determined on a “week-to-week” basis, as is established in the opening paragraph of section 28, which provides:
“An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the commission finds that: * * * CL 1948, § 421.28 (Stat Ann 1960 Eev § 17.530).
Section 27n also establishes “weekly” benefits and “weeks” providing that each week is to be considered separately with regard to the reduction thereof to the extent of the workmen’s compensation payments received during that week.
Section 27n is prospective and not retrospective in character. It takes away no vested right and in no way can be determined to be retrospective.
The judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed. No costs, a public question being involved.
Dethmeks, C. J., concurred with Kelly, J.PA 1936 (Ex Sess), No 1, § 27n (CL 1948, § 421.27n), as added by PA 1963, No 188 (Stat Ann 1963 Cum Supp § 17.529[1]). Section 27n was repealed by PA 1965, No 281, but the same act reenacted substantially the same language as subd (m) of section 27 of the employment security act (CL 1948, § 4§1,2.7 [Stat Ann 1965 Cum-Supp § 17.529]).