(dissenting). The military pay statute was violated. I also agree that the finding of the Court of Claims that the plaintiff was, in effect, ordered not to make his claim was not clearly erroneous. Furthermore I agree that the plaintiff is not estopped from pressing his claim.
I do not, however, agree that the effect of this order should be to toll or suspend the statute of limitations.1 It does not appear that the plaintiff would have suffered any sanctions by pressing his claim except the loss of favored status with one or more superior officers and the possible loss of his position under one pretext or another.2 Absent some special contractual or statutory job security these are sanctions that one may ordinarily anticipate when one sues his employer. The enforcement of rights frequently entail risks. The plaintiff elected not to take the risks and now wants the best of two worlds.
The plaintiff has cited no authority that a threatened severance of a beneficial relationship with an adversary party tolls a statute of limitations and I do not believe we should make one.
Furthermore it is unclear why the state’s failure to conduct a payroll audit prevented the plaintiff from filing his claim. The Court of Claims could and did order an audit after the claim was filed.
For these reasons I vote to remand this claim for determination of the plaintiff’s claim with the statute of limitations applied.
CL 1948, § 600.6452 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.6452).
He might have been court-martialed but the correctness of his position would have been a valid defense.