Until Wilson v Doehler — Jarvis Division of National Lead Co, 358 Mich. 510; 100 N.W.2d 226 (1960), interest had not been allowed on workmen's compensation awards. Wilson overruled Fowler v Muskegon County, 340 Mich. 522; 65 N.W.2d 801 (1954), which had held that because interest in Michigan was purely statutory and there was no interest provision in the workmen's compensation law, interest could not be awarded. In Wilson, the Court found that although interest is purely statutory, interest could be allowed in cases where no express statute could be invoked.
By PA 1943, No 245; PA 1954, No 175; and PA 1965, No 44. Consider next the case of Wilson v. Doehler-Jarvis Division of National Lead Company (1960), 358 Mich. 510. Earlier, in 1954, in Fowler v. Muskegon County, 340 Mich. 522, 526, a case dealing with the workmen's compensation law, this Court unanimously held: "Under our holding in the Luyk Case, [ Luyk v. Hertel (1928), 242 Mich. 445] the remedy for all matters connected with compensation must be found in the statute, and our holding in the Kermott Case, [ Kermott v. Ayer (1863), 11 Mich. 181] is that interest is statutory.
In Wilson v. Doehler-Jarvis, 358 Mich. 510, which involved a claim under the workmen's compensation law for death benefits and expenses of the employee's last illness and burial, this Court first determined that awards for such benefits and expenses should bear interest from the time such awards themselves became due. The majority of the Court which reached that conclusion, and in the process overruled (p 517) Fowler v. Muskegon County, 340 Mich. 522, considered the commentary of Dean Roscoe Pound on the case of Parker v. Brinson Construction Co. (Fla), 78 So.2d 873, which commentary appears in 16 NACCA Law Journal 135, 136, and the Minnesota cases of Brown v. City of Pipestone, 186 Minn. 540 ( 245 N.W. 145), and Bourdeaux v. Gilbert Motor Co., 220 Minn. 538 ( 20 N.W.2d 393), in concluding that interest should be paid on compensation awards in the same manner in which interest is paid in actions ex contractu, that is, from the time of the accrual of the cause of action. Reliance was placed (pp 518, 519) upon the following language from Brown v. City of Pipestone, as quoted in Bourdeaux v. Gilbert Motor Co. (p 541): "Here was a contract debt due at the times when the compensation instalments should have been paid under the provisions of the act, and we see no reason why it should not, like any other debt, bear interest at the legal rate when it is subsequently decided that the debt existed."
Assuming jurisdiction in the circuit court ever to allow interest, at what point should such interest commence? To support its claim that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to allow interest on the award, appellant cites us to Fowler v. Muskegon County. 340 Mich. 522, a similar case dealing with the allowance of interest on a workmen's compensation award. That case held flatly that interest is statutory, and that because the workmen's compensation act did not specifically provide for interest, the circuit court was without authority to allow it.
It is well settled that the right to interest is purely statutory. Detroit v Detroit Police Officers Ass'n, 408 Mich. 410; 294 N.W.2d 68 (1980), app dis 450 U.S. 903; 101 S Ct 1337; 67 L Ed 2d 326 (1981); Fowler v Muskegon Co, 340 Mich. 522; 65 N.W.2d 801 (1954). This Court has quoted 47 CJS, Interest, § 5, p 17, with approval: "[T]he legislature has the widest powers on the subject [of interest], and the will of the legislature controls except insofar as limitations are placed on this power by the organic law."
In this state, interest had not been allowed on workmen's compensation awards until Wilson v Doehler-Jarvis Division of Nat'l Lead Co, 358 Mich. 510; 100 N.W.2d 226 (1960). Wilson expressly overruled Fowler v Muskegon County 340 Mich. 522; 65 N.W.2d 801 (1954). Fowler had held that as interest in Michigan was purely statutory and there was no provision in the workmen's compensation law therefor, interest could not be awarded.
"In the case of Wilson v. Doehler-Jarvis, 358 Mich. 510, at page 515, the Court said: "`In the Fowler Case [ Fowler v. Muskegon County (1954), 340 Mich. 522] we said that interest is purely statutory, yet the fact is that we have consistently allowed interest in many cases in which no express statute could be invoked.' * * * "And in the very recent case of Currie v. Fiting, 375 Mich. 440, the court awarded interest from the date of death on the damages subsequently determined by the jury.
Sullivan v. Michigan State Board of Dentistry, 268 Mich. 427, and cases cited therein. Ought not law created by this Court to be accorded equal deference and presumption of constitutionality? For this Court to announce in Wilson, on January 4, 1960, that the old law as stated in Fowler v. Muskegon County, 340 Mich. 522, which denied that plaintiff the right to interest on workmen's compensation benefits, was then being overruled and that under the new or true law plaintiff Wilson was entitled to such interest, but now, in 1962, without overruling Wilson but, in fact, professing that it is still the law, to say to plaintiff McDaniel that his claim for like interest, to which he would be entitled under that present law, is denied because his cause of action for compensation accrued before this Court spoke on the interest question in Wilson, is to deny plaintiff McDaniel equal protection of the laws. On January 4, 1960, a majority of this Court declared the law to be that plaintiffs are entitled to interest on workmen's compensation benefits from due date until paid.