
    BROWN BROTHERS EQUIPMENT COMPANY v. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.
    1. Contracts — Court op Claims — Highways—Summary Judgment.
    Summary judgment by court of claims for defendant State highway commission on ground that plaintiff’s claims for damages could bo resolved in condemnation proceedings against plaintiff’s property held, improper where complaint and exhibits stated cause of action in contract for purchase of property against highway commission.
    2. Same — Court op Claims — Jurisdiction.
    Court of claims has exclusive jurisdiction over claims in contract against State and State commissions (CLS 1961, § 600-.6419).
    3. Costs — Contracts—States.
    Ño costs are awarded on appeal by' plaintiff asserting contract '; right against State highway commission in court of claims; from summary judgment dismissing action.
    References por Points in Headnotes
    [1] 41 Am Jur, Pleadings §§ 340-343.
    [2] 20 Am Jur 2d, Courts § 33.
    [3] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error §§ 1009, 1013.
    
      Appeal from Court of Claims; Beer (William J.), J.
    Submitted Division 2 May 7, 1968, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 4,413.)
    Decided May 31, 1968.
    Leave to appeal denied September 3, 1968.
    See 381 Mich 772.
    Brown Brothers Equipment Company, a Michigan corporation, filed claim in the Court of Claims against the State Highway Commission for damages for breach of contract. Summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
    [Reversed and remanded.
    
      Glassen, Parr, Rhead & McLean, for plaintiff.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Louis J. Caruso and Robert J. Taube, Assistant Attorneys General, for defendant.
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiff filed its claim in the court of claims against defendants for damages for breach of an alleged contract between plaintiff and Michigan State Highway Commission consummated, if at all, prior to the institution of condemnation proceedings by the commission against property of plaintiff. The alleged contract resulted from negotiations between the commission and plaintiff concerning the interests of plaintiff in the property sought by the commission. Plaintiff’s action was filed in the court of claims subsequent to the condemnation proceedings.

The court of claims granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment for the reason that all of plaintiff’s claims for damages could be resolved in the condemnation case. Plaintiff appeals.

The complaint and exhibits attached thereto state a cause of action in contract against the State and a State commission. The court of claims has exclusive jurisdiction of such claims. CLS 1961, § 600-.6419 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.6419).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings, but without costs.

Lesinsici, C. J., and Quinn and Moody, JJ., concurred. 
      
       Filed under PA 1966, No 295 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 8.261 [1] et seq).
     