Abbott v. State

• Citation: 303 Mich. 575,6 N.W.2d 900
• Decision Date: 23 December 1942
• Docket Number: No. 55.,55.
• Parties: ABBOTT v. STATE et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

303 Mich. 575

6 N.W.2d 900

ABBOTT

v.STATE et al.

No. 55.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 23, 1942.

Action by Charles S. Abbott against the State of Michigan and Michigan State Industries on express and implied contract. From an order dismissing the petition, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Court of Claims; Robert M. Toms, Judge.

Before the Entire Bench.

Frank C. Sibley, of Detroit, for appellant.

Herbert J. Rushton, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., and Meredith H. Doyle and Daniel J. O'Hara, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellees.

BUSHNELL, Justice.

Petitioner Charles S. Abbott sought recovery of $13,500,000 from defendants State of Michigan and Michigan State Industries, which he describes as a department of the State of Michigan. Abbott recites in his petition that, prior to the 1st day of July, 1921, he ‘was and now is the first designer, originator, and sole owner of a certain new improved and entirely distinctive method and secret process for stamping metal products; embodying among other improvements and salient features, a secret method and construction of equipment for the manufacture and production of metal plates and particularly, license plates for automobiles,’ that he disclosed this secret method and process to the State of Michigan through the Honorable Alex J. Groesbeck, then its governor, and the Honorable Coleman C. Vaughan, then its secretary of state, and that its use ‘was acquiesced in, agreed upon and adopted with the full knowledge and consent of the Warden and Board of Control at the State Prison at Jackson, Michigan,’ and that he installed or caused such machinery and equipment to be installed. He claims that the State obligated itself to pay him a substantial and reasonable share, to-wit: ‘one-half of the net profits and/or net savings that could be effected by the use of petitioner's secret method, machinery and equipment.’ He also claims the right to recover on an implied contract.

Abbott asserts that, since the making of this contract, the State has manufactured and produced approximately 20,000,000 sets of license plates on which it has saved, through the use of his secret method and process, at least $20,000,000, or $1 per set, and, in addition, has made a savings in the manufacture of road signs, etc., of $5,000,000.

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. This motion was urged upon the grounds that the supposed cause of action did not accrue to plaintiff at any time within three years next before the commencement thereof and that, by his long acquiescence, silence and delay, and his failure to bring his action until the filing of the petition herein, namely, October 30, 1941, plaintiff was guilty of laches, which bars any relief which he now seeks.

The Court of Claims Act of 1939, 5 Comp.Laws Supp.1940, § 13862-1 et seq., Stat.Ann. § 27.3548 et seq., provides in § 17 that: ‘Every claim against the state, cognizable by the court of claims, shall be forever barred unless the claim is filed with the clerk of the court or suit instituted thereon in federal court as authorized in section 14, within [three] 3 years after the claim first accrues.’

On appeal, Abbott argues that defendant Michigan State Industries was originally created by the act of 1911; 3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 17614 et seq., Stat.Ann. §§ 28.1461-28.1470; repealed by the act of 1935, No. 210, Stat.Ann. § 28.1521 et seq., and was authorized by the Legislature, through the warden and Board of Control of the State Prison at Jackson, ‘to use purchase, * * * maintain buildings, machinery, * * * which may be necessary for the manufacture of goods, wares and merchandise,’ § 1, and that its transactions with him created either an express or implied contract on which the State is obligated.

He denies that his claim is barred by any statute of limitations or by laches. He contends that no statute of limitations could begin to run upon his claim until the Court of Claims was established, because, until its establishment, there was no way in which his claim could be adjudicated.

Before the creation of the present Court of Claims, the Board of State Auditors had authority, under Art. VI, § 20, of the Constitution, to ‘examine and adjust all claims against the state not otherwise provided for by general law.’ The Court of Claims was substituted by the Legislature for the Board of State Auditors. See Manion v. State Highway Commissioner, 303 Mich. 1, 5 N.W.2d 527. Writ of certiorari denied, 63 S.Ct. 159, 87 L.Ed. 543. At all times there has been a forum in existence where Abbott's claim could be adjudicated.

The decisive question is whether Abbott's claim, founded either on an express or implied contract, is barred by the statute of limitations. 3 Comp.Laws 1929, § 13976 (Stat.Ann. § 27.605) reads in...