text:
    (No. 1560
    Armour and Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Harry B. Bogg, Jr., for claimant.

      Oscar E. Caelstbom, Attorney General; Gael I: Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for 2,503 pounds of frozen boneless briskets delivered to the Kankakee State Hospital on an order by the Department of Purchases and Construction of the State of Illinois. There seems no doubt as to the delivery of the article in question and the Attorney General comes and consents that an award be allowed in the amount of $376.54.

The court, therefore, recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of $376.54.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

license: Public Domain

text:
    (Nos. 1561-1521
    Arthur Van Gorder, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Ralph P. Sheridan, for claimant.
    ■Oscar E. Caelstbom, Attorney General; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears that the two above mentioned claims grew out of one accident which occurred on Feb. 10th, 1926, and in filing the opinion the court believes that said claims be treated jointly.

It appears that claimant was employed by the State of Illinois as a State Highway Patrol Officer and he alleges that while in the performance of his duties as such highway patrol officer under authority from a superior that he was severely injured at a point on State Highway No. 5 a short distance from Elizabeth, JoDaviess county, Illinois. The claimant in No. 1521 asked for the sum of One Hundred and Thirty ($130.00) Dollars for doctor, hospital and ambulance bills. The car driven by claimant which was struck by a truck it is claimed was almost totally destroyed and the claimant asked Four Hundred and Fifteen ($415.00) Dollars. The court is of the opinion that this is a value greater than the amount sustained but that Three Hundred ($300.00) Dollars would be a fair return for the loss sustained on account of automobile. The Attorney General comes and makes no objections as to the facts set forth by the claimant and after a full consideration in the matter the court recommends that claimant be allowed in full for both claims the sum of Four Hundred and Thirty ($430.00) Dollars.


author: Mr. Justice Thomas

text:
    (No. .1565
    Letta Edwards, and Lizzie Sieple, Executrices of the Last Will and Testament of Howard W. Newell, Deceased, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    C. W. Middlekauff and Fred S. Smith, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Boy D. Johnson and Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant files this claim for damages to resident property in Mt. Carroll, Illinois, on account of the construction of a hard road in front of his residence. It is stipulated and agreed by both counsel for claimant and Attorney General for the State that the claimant is damaged to the amount of $750.00.

The court on said agreement of attorneys for claimant and defendant makes an award for claimant of $750.00.


text:
    (No. 1566
    George Kramer, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    C. W. Middlekauff And Fred S. Smith, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Boy D. Johnson and Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant files this claim for damages to dwelling house on account of the construction of routes No. 40 and No. 78 of the hard road system, in front of his residence. Counsel for claimant and the Attorney General for the State have agreed that the claimant is damaged in the sum of $600.00.

Therefore, an award for the sum of $600.00 is awarded claimant.


text:
    (No. 1568
    Arthur Dhermy, Sr., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Hogan and Coale, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears claimant suffered damages by reason of hard road construction of S. B. I. Boute No. 48 in the Village of • Stonington.

The Attorney General comes and stipulates and agrees that claimant suffered damages in the sum of $900.00. The court, therefore, recommends that claimant be allowed $900.00.


text:
    (No. 1569
    Minnie E. Kuntz, Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel A. Kuntz, Deceased, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    O. C. Smith,, for claimant.
    Oscab E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Boy D. Johnson ' and Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed by the administratrix of the estate of claimant to recover damages under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It appears that claimant was employed as a teamster at the Illinois Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Home at Quincy, Illinois. His duties appeared to be using a team and wagon supplied for the purpose of hauling. He worked under the direction of the Chief Engineer. On Dec. 2nd, 1929, the team used by deceased needed to.be shod and he went to the building in which the office of the head gardner was located to secure a proper order for shoeing the horses. At the time there were present in this office the deceased, the head gardner Diker who sat at his desk working, also a farm laborer. In a pigeon hole of Mr. Diker’s desk there was a half pint unlabeled bottle containing a reddish brown liquid. There being some conversation as to what the bottle contained, one of the parties smelled and investigated the contents. The deceased picked up the bottle and took a swallow of its contents. The deceased immediately became ill. He was rushed to the hospital and died on the way. It appeared that the bottle contained nicotine solution.

This court is of the opinion that this is a case that would not come under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The deceased was a teamster and his duties did not include tasting liquids and it can be stated as a fact that he was not acting in the line of duty when he tasted and swallowed a portion of this bottle of liquid. He assumed the risk and the injuries sustained was a hazard created by curiosity or otherwise.

It would appear to this court that a private corporation would not be called upon to respond in a case of like nature. The employe went beyond his line of duty and suffered the unhappy consequences. If it were the duty of deceased to sample contents of bottles then of course it would be considered extra hazardous as defined by statute. But he went beyond his line of duty and was not acting under instructions from a superior and therefore the court is unable to find any liability on the State of Illinois and it is recommended that this claim be disallowed.


text:
    (No. 1583
    Beth Jane McWilliams, a Minor, by Bessie McWilliams, her Next Friend, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 16, 1931.

      Rehearing denied May 14, 1931.

    Michel & Barnes, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank B. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is claim for $5,000.00 for injuries which claimant alleges she sustained on account of being struck by an automobile. It is charged that a trailer which was attached to a State truck struck an automobile and caused the automobile to strike claimant and thereby she was severely bruised and injured. The accident occurred March 5, 1930, on North Adams Street in Peoria. Neither the declaration nor the facts show any liability on the part of the State. If the injury was caused by the negligence of either the driver of the truck or the owner of the automobile claimant has a cause of action against the one whose negligence caused it. But because the truck was being driven by an employee of the State does not make the State liable. The rule that the State is not liable for injuries caused by the negligence of its agents and employees is so well established that a citation of authorities is unnecessary.

The claim is therefore denied and the case dismissed.

On May 14, 1931, upon petition for rehearing, the following additional opinion was filed:

•Claimant has filed a petition for rehearing in this case but has pointed out no reason why one should be granted. The petition states there is no direct proof that the employees of the State were negligent. Certainly if its employees were not negligent the State is not legally liable for the injury. The petition for a rehearing is denied.


text:
    (No. 1587
    Joseph M. Knowles, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Boyer & Leonard, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Boy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears that claimant was ivorlting for the University of Illinois through the summer of 1926. It appears further that the claimant was moving large crates from one room to another of the canning factory connected with the university. It appears that a crate slipped off and struck Mr. Knowles in the abdomen causing quite considerable injury to bladder.

The Attorney General comes and defends and sets up that claimant under the Workmen’s .Compensation Law in event there was a liability, would be entitled on account of temporary total disability, medical bills and hospital expenses the sum of $2,607.05.

The court is of the opinion that there is a liability as measured by the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Therefore the court recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of $2,607.05.


text:
    (No. 1589
    Patrick Ansbro, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Bernard L. Kelly, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant was employed by the State as a structural iron worker on Brandon Boad Pool, being project No. 6 of the Illinois Waterway. It has been stipulated by the parties that claimant was injured on June 27, 1929, and that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, that the State furnished claimant medical, surgical and hospital treatment for three months and paid him compensation at the rate of $19.00 a week for five and one-half weeks. It is conceded that claimant is entitled to be paid $19.00 a week for twenty and one-seventh weeks in addition to payments he has already received. He is therefore awarded the sum of $382.71.


text:
    (No. 1590
    C. J. Spencer, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    . C. S. Miller, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

. The claimant alleges that he was an employe of the State of Illinois holding the position of Superintendent of the Fish and Game Preserve known as the Horseshoe Lake Game Preserve in Alexander county, Illinois. While serving in this capacity on'July 23rd, 1927, and following the instruction of his superiors he was cutting brush and clearing away motor boat landings. While doing this his helper pulled some short bushes back to chop and the bushes flew back and one of the broken ends hit the claimant across his left eye bruising and injuring the eyeball and according to claimant he lost the sight of one eye. The claimant requests the allowance of Two Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty ($2,250.00) Dollars. The Attorney comes and defends and states that if there is any liability that the claimant should not. be allowed a sum exceeding Sixteen Hundred and Eighty ($1,680.00) Dollars. The court is of the opinion that the recommendation of the Attorney General is correct in this instance and recommends that the claimant be allowed the sum of Sixteen Hundred and Eighty ($1,680.00) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1613
    Harry F. Hamlin, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

      Harry F. Hamlin, pro se.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, ' Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears that claimant desires to recover for the loss of cattle known as re-acting cattle. Two animals were disposed of according to claimant. It appears that the tests and the destruction of the animals were not authorized by the State of Illinois and according to the Attorney General a voluntary act and loss on the part of the claimant.

In view of all the facts and circumstances disclosed in this case, the court disallows the claim.


text:
    (No. 1615
    Louis M. Gietl, and Henry L. Gietl, Partners, Doing Business Under the Name and Style of Gietl Bros., Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Walter T. Day, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent:
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimants have filed their claim for $507.65 for repairs and labor upon one of the State automobiles used by the employees of the State of Illinois. The Attorney General comes and enters into a stipulation with the claimants and admits that the State is liable in the sum of $350.00 for labor and repairs on .the State automobile and recommends that an award be allowed claimants in the sum of $350.00. On the recommendation of the Attorney General for the State an award is hereby allowed in the sum of $350.00 to claimants.


text:
    (No. 1616
    Emilio Dinon, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Clark, Young & Bull, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for personal injury sustained by claimant while he was employed by the State of Illinois through its Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways. There is no contention but that the employment was extra hazardous and the Attorney General appearing in open court recommends that there is a liability on the part of the State of Illinois and that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act claimant is entitled to an allowance in the sum of $686.25.

Thereupon, the court recommends that the claimant be allowed the sum of $686.25.


text:
    (No. 1624
    Herbis Farley, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Herbis Farley, pro se.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court :

On April 19, 1924, the claimant was advised that he had been appointed Maintenance Patrolman on Patrol 1008, with headquarters at Leland, Illinois, at a salary of $160.00 per month without expenses effective at once. The claimant worked for 21 months and was paid a salary of $140.00 per month. On July 10, 1930, he filed his claim for $20.00 per month for the 21 months being the difference between the amount he should have received and the amount paid him. There seems to be no question but what the claimant was to draw $160.00 per month.

Paragraph 10 of Section 1 of the Court of Claims Act, reads as follows: “Every claim against the State cognizable by the Court of Claims, shall be forever barred unless the claim is filed with the Secretary of the court within five years after the claim first accrues, saving to infants, idiots, lunatics, insane persons and persons under disability at the time the claim accrues, two years from the time the disability is removed. ’ ’

In this case it appears to the court that more than five years have elapsed before the filing of the claim as to 14 months and 20 days, leaving 6 months and 10 days at $20.00 that is not barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Therefore an award is hereby made for the 6 months and 10 days for $130.00.


text:
    (No. 1625
    Joseph Novak, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Clark, Young & Bull, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

. This is a claim for personal injury sustained by claimant while he was employed by the State of Illinois through its Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways. There is no contention but that the employment .was extra hazardous and the Attorney General appearing in open court recommends that there is a liability on the part of the State of Illinois and that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act claimant is entitled to an allowance in the sum of $425.00.

Thereupon, the court recommends that the claimant be allowed the sum of $425.00.


text:
    (No. 1626
    Ralph Winkel, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Clark, Young & Bull, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for personal injury sustained by claimant while he was employed by the State of Illinois through its Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways. There is no contention but that the employment was extra hazardous and the Attorney General appearing in open court recommends that there is a liability on the part of the State of Illinois and that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act claimant is entitled to an allowance in the sum of $954.00.

Thereupon, the court recommends that the claimant be allowed the sum of $954.00.


text:
    (No. 1627
    Edgar J. Mayer, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Clark, Young & Bull, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for personal injury sustained by claimant while he was employed by the State of Illinois, through its Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways.

There is no contention but that the employment was extra hazardous and the Attorney General appearing in open court recommends that there is a liability on the part of the State of Illinois and that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act claimant should be allowed the sum of $433.75.

Thereupon, the court recommends that claimant be allowed $433.75.


text:
    (No. 1633
    James F. Grimes, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Harry Anderson, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for property damage in the sum of Three Hundred and Twenty-three ($323.00) Dollars, for damage to about 18 acres of hay and timberland as a result of a fire on July 15th, 1930. It is claimed that the fire spread from the right of way of State Bond Issue Route 142.

It appears that some damage was done to the property of claimant through this fire and the Attorney General recommends that claimant be allowed a sum not to exceed One Hundred and Fifty ($150.00) Dollars. The court is of the opinion that this allowance is fair and reasonable and therefore recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of One Hundred and Fifty ($150.00) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1634
    J. B. Anderson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    C. W. Middlekauff and R. M. Eaton, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant filed this claim for damages to his residence on account of the construction of a hard road in front of the same for damages-to the amount of $1,250.

It is stipulated and agreed between counsel for claimant and Attorney General for the State that the claimant’s damages amount to $1,250.00.

The court, on the stipulation of counsel, grants an award for $1,250 to claimant.


text:
    (No. 1637
    Joseph W. Beavins, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Frank J. Burns and James T. Burns, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

By consent of'the claimant this cause is dismissed and striken from the docket on motion of the Attorney General.


text:
    (No. 1638
    Frank Rudow, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Arley Munts, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

According to claimant’s statement, he was the owner of a ■certain brick garage building situated in the City of Morris in the State of Illinois; that said garage was rented to the State of Illinois for the use of the Division of Highways for one motor truck. It appears that the driver of a Reo motor truck drove through the door of said garage damaging the door in the sum of Eighty-eight and 30/100 ($88.30) Dollars, according to claimant.

This court is of the opinion that the owner of the garage should take action if any against the truck driver as there must be some carelessness somewhere, and this court recommends that this claim be disallowed.


text:
    (No. 1639
    George Winters, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    William J. Long, for claimant.
    Oscab E. Cablstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim to recover damages while actually engaged in grading and scraping the roadway in building up shoulders on S. B. I. Route No. 31 about two miles west of Mount Sterling, Illinois. On October 5th, 1929, claimant was engaged in removing a steel road drag from the top of a truck loaded with waste pieces or blocks of cement. In so doing a large piece of cement slipped down claimant’s right leg and struck his toe, mashing the same. This piece of cement weighed approximately 100 pounds.

The Attorney General comes and defends and admits that if there is any liability it should be in the sum of $98.00. The court feels that this case comes under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and, therefore, recommends that claimant be awarded the sum of $98.00.


text:
    (No. 1643
    William Kriz, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Abley Munts, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Cablstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant was employed by the State in the business declared by the Workmen’s Compensation Act to be extra hazardous. On the 6th day of September, 1929, while engaged as night electrician in charge of the pumps and while working on a gas engine trying to start it the engine back fired and ignited a can of gasoline which claimant had in his hand. As a result thereof the claimant was severely burned on the abdomen, chest, both wrists and both hands. The medical, surgical and hospital bills were all furnished by the State. His injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment, and the State is liable to compensate him for them.

The Attorney General recommends that the claimant be allowed six weeks temporary total disability at $15.00 per week and twenty-five weeks for disfigurement which makes a total of $465.00.

It is therefore ordered that claimant be and he is awarded the sum of $465.00. •


text:
    (No. 1646
    Charles McDermott, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Thomas A. Murphy, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank E. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This claim was brought to recover compensation for injury to claimant as an employe of the State of Illinois under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The claimant was employed in line of duty on Nov. 8th, 1929, as a brakeman on a gravel train. On said date an axle of a car in the train on which he was riding, broke and the front end of the car came down upon the claimant’s left foot. The train being still in motion he was dragged some distance. He sustained an injury to his left foot about the anide.

The Attorney General conies and recommends that an allowance of Thirteen Hundred ($1,300.00) Dollars be made, and on said recommendation the court allows the sum of Thirteen Hundred ($1,300.00) Dollars.


author: Mr. Chief Justice Clabity

text:
    (No. 1648
    W. T. McCormack, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    John H. Seabing, for claimant.
    Oscab E. Cablstbom, Attorney General; Fbank E. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clabity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant was employed as head carpenter for the Southern Illinois Normal University. On or about the 25th day of February while employed in painting and redecorating and tearing out certain cabinets in the chemical room and working on a scaffold of about ten feet in height, a workman assisting him stepped off of one of the boards permitting the claimant on the other end of the board to fall to the floor and fractured the heel hone of his left foot, wrenched both of his wrists and wrenched his back and caused a contusion of the back part of his head.

The Attorney General comes and defends and recommends that if this court finds the claimant operated under the Workmen’s Compensation Act that claimant he allowed a compensation of $1,725.00.

Therefore, it is recommended that claimant he awarded the sum of $1,725.00.


text:
    (No. 1649
    William Clevermann, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    John A. Mayhew, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank E. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant alleges that he was injured at the Kankakee State Hospital, Kankakee, Illinois, on May 21st, 1929. He was employed as a wagon maker and while he was attempting to straighten a piece of lumber claimant’s hand slipped into the knives on the machine cutting oft his right thumb and his right index finger.

The Attorney General comes and defends and recommends that if the court believes the claimant comes under the Workmen’s Compensation Act that he be allowed $1,100.00.

The court is of the opinion that this case does come under the Workmen’s Compensation Act .and, therefore, recommends the allowance of $1,100.00.


text:
    (No. 1651
    Reeve B. Bokemeier, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Dunwiddie & Thurber, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

On January 10, 1930, while claimant was driving his automobile on State Highway Number 5 near Pingree Grove he collided with a track belonging to the State. The track was being driven by Theodore Rankin while engaged in work for the State, and it is charged the collision was caused by the careless and negligent manner in which Rankin operated the truck.

It is the settled law of Illinois that the State is not liable for injuries caused by the negligence of its officers, agents or employees in the absence of a statute creating such liability. This rule is so well known and has been so many times announced by this court and the Supreme Court that a citation of authorities is unnecessary.

If the damages to claimant’s automobile were caused by the negligence of Rankin claimant is not without a remedy as Rankin is liable to him for all damages caused by his negligence.

As claimant has no cause of action against the State his claim is denied and the case dismissed.


text:
    Ernestine Sterling Hansen, 1655; Ernestine Sterling Hansen, Administratrix of the Estate of Virginia Sterling, Deceased, 1656; Ernestine Sterling Hansen, Administratrix of the Estate of Catherine Brockman, Deceased, 1657, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Schnackenberg and Hansen, for claimants.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr.' Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

For the purpose of consideration the above claims have been consolidated on stipulation and agreement of counsel. All three claims arise out of the same accident which occurred June 15th, 1930, near the Bobey race track at 112th St., near the City of Hamomnd, Indiana, and not far distant from the Illinois State Line. There appears to be little dispute as to the facts in these cases. An air corp airplane belonging to the 108th Observation Squadron, 33rd Division, Illinois National Guard, while on an authorized training flight and piloted by Lieut. W. V. Newhall crashed into a parked automobile while attempting to takeoff from an emergency landing field near the race track. This car was parked with others on a highway near the landing field from which the plane took off. The automobile was owned and driven by Peter Brockman who was seated in the front seat with his wife, claimant’s mother. Claimant’s small daughter Virginia Sterling was being held on the lap of her grandmother. Claimant Virginia Sterling Hansen was sitting alone in the rear seat of the car. The airplane in the endeavor to takeoff crashed into the car of claimant, wrecked both the car and the airplane killing Brockman the driver, the mother of the claimant and the small daughter of the claimant and claimant herself suffered severe lacerations about the right arm, shoulder and head. The occupants of the airplane escaped without serious injury.

The Attorney General comes and defends and sets up that there is no legal liability on the part of the State. The court is of the opinion that this contention is true and there is no reason to go into a discussion of that fact. The State also contends that the pilot used all due precaution. This court is of the opinion that a pilot who undertakes the handling of an airplane should be very cautious in the takeoff or in any other particular for the safety of the people. If there was not sufficient room to make a proper takeoff the pilot or the mechanic should so inform the police in charge so that they might disburse and remove their cars, or wait until the crowd had disbursed before taking off.

This is a very grave injury and in ordinary cases the court would be disposed to deny claimants a remedy but the Illinois National Guard was created for the benefit of the State and the protection of its citizens in times of turmoil. And therefore the court being mindful of the obligation of the State of Illinois in carrying out its military protection and the fact that this accident occurred while the airplane was being used as a part of such military program this court is, of the opinion that in view of equity and good conscience a suitable award should be made. The court wishes to be reasonably fair to those injured in this regretable accident, yet the rights of the People of the State of Illinois should not be overlooked.

In view of all the facts and circumstances the court recommends that Ernestine Sterling Hansen who was very grievously injured be allowed the sum of Fifty-five Hundred ($5,500.00) Dollars, being in full for injuries sustained, hospital and medical attention, and Ernestine Sterling Hansen as administratrix of the estate of Virginia Sterling, deceased, be allowed the sum of Two Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars, and Ernestine Sterling Hansen as administratrix of the estate of Catherine Brockman, deceased, be allowed the sum of Two Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1659
    Samuel Whitmore, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1930.

    John P. McDonald, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant was employed by the State as a carpenter on the Dresden Island Lock and Dam of the Illinois Waterway. On December 1, 1929, while engaged at his work he suffered a inguinal hernia which incapacitated him from work for eight weeks. The injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, and he is entitled to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act at the rate of $15.00 per week for the eight weeks he was disabled. The evidence also shows he was required to incur a physician’s bill of $125.00 in being cured of the injury. He is therefore awarded the sum of $245.00.


text:
    (No. 1665
    W. M. Welch Manufacturing Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Cattell & Waldron, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant, on the 28th day of June, 1929, entered into a contract with the State with its legal representatives for the sale of certain labor and materials used in the finishing, erecting and completion of laboratory equipment for a science building at the Illinois State Normal University at Normal, Illinois. Claimant did, on the 20th day of April, 1930, complete said contract according to the plans and specifications. On June 28, 1929, there ivas an unexpended balance remaining in the revolving fund for State universities for $46,068.62 appropriated by the 55th General Assembly out of which this claim could have been paid if the contract had been completed. The 56th General Assembly failed to reappropriate any fund to take care of claimant’s uncompleted contract and the unexpended balance of $18,430.45 lapsed into the State Treasury on September 30th, 1929, and when the claimant’s contract ivas completed in April, 1930, there were no funds out of which this claim could be paid.

It is admitted by the Attorney General for the State that claimant furnished the material and did the Avork according to the contract and the plans and specifications and that the claim is a just claim against the State and recommends that the same be alloAved in the sum of $14,212.00.

On the recommendation of the Attorney General an award is alloAved in the sum of $14,212.00.


text:
    (No. 1669
    Standard Oil Company, Indiana, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    F. E. Packard and William E. O’Connor, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Cablstbom, Attorney Greneral; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney Greneral, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

This claim is for $56.90 motor fuel tax alleged to have been paid through mistake by claimant under the provisions of the Motor Fuel Act of 1927. Claimant was a licensed distributor of motor fuel and as such sold to the Bed, White and Blue Oil Company 2845 gallons of motor fuel in August, 1927. In its September report to the Department of Finance it included this motor fuel and paid the tax thereon. The Bed, White and Blue Oil Company, a licensed distributor of motor fuel, also included this same motor fuel in its report to the Department of Finance in September and paid the tax on it. The Bed, White and Blue Oil Company refused to reimburse claimant for the tax and it has filed this claim to have the State refund the tax to it. It has been stipulated that the Bed, White and Blue Oil Company was primarily liable for the payment of the tax and that the tax was paid by claimant “by mistake and through error,” but the stipulation does not state whether the mistake was one of fact or of law. We think from the facts disclosed by the declaration, exhibits and stipulation that the tax was paid by claimant under the view that the provisions of the statute required it to pay the tax. There is no question but what claimant paid the tax voluntarily, and it is well settled that taxes voluntarily paid under a mistake of law cannot be recovered back. This principle of law has been many times announced by our Supreme Court. (Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Boys, 296 Ill. 166; Richardson Lubricating Co. v. Kinney, 337 Ill. 122; Illinois Merchants Trust Co. v. Harvey, 335 Ill. 284.)

The claim is therefore denied and the case dismissed.


text:
    (No. 1671
    Hinrichs & Schroeder, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Hinrichs & Schroeder, pro se.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

On March 25, 1930, while Esmail Gladu was removing siioav from State highway on Route No. 49 at the east edge of the Village of Peotone, Illinois, he stopped at the filling-station of Hinrichs & Schroeder to get gas. As he was leaving the service station he ran his truck into a large snow drift. He then stopped and backed his truck in order to get a better start to ploAv through the drift and, in doing so, the back end of the truck hit the south pier of the service station and moved it off of the foundation. The claimants were out $72.98 to repair the building and file this claim for their damages.

It is the settled law of Illinois that the State is not liable for injuries caused by the negligence of its officers, agents or employees, in the absence of a statute creating such liability. This rule is so well known and has been so many times announced by this court and the Supreme Court that a citation of authorities is unnecessary.

As the claimants have no cause of action against the State their claim is denied and the case dismissed.


author: Mr. Chief Justice'Clarity

text:
    (No. 1672
    May E. McDonald, Administratrix of the Estate of R. J. McDonald, Deceased, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

      Pebby H. Hiles, for claimant.
    Oscab E. Cablstbom, Attorney General; Gael I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice'Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act as widow. Claimant’s husband died as a result of injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment on July 10, 1930, while a highway police officer under the Department of Public Works and Buildings. It appears the claimant’s husband has lost his life in the line of duty and in the- performance of his duty.

The Attorney General comes and recommends that claimant be awarded a sum not to exceed $3,750.00, as provided by Section 7 (a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The court is of the opinion that the claimant’s husband lost Ms life in line of duty and that it was extra hazardous employment as defined by the statutes of the State of Illinois. Therefore, this court recommends that the claimant be allowed the sum of $3,750.00.


text:
    (No. 1674
    Thomas J. Connell, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    William C. Mooney, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Cablstbom, Attorney General; Gael I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant was employed by the State as a structural iron worker on the Brandon Road Lock and Dam, being project No. 5 of the Illinois Waterway. On December 10, 1929, while engaged at his duties, he received an injury to his right foot. The injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. We have carefully considered the evidence in the case and find he is entitled to be compensated for his injury in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. He is accordingly awarded the sum of $442.50.


text:
    (No. 1676
    Elmer J. Asp, Administrator of the Estate of Kenneth E. Asp, Deceased, Elmer E. Asp, John E. Asp, Aarold G. Asp, Individually and as Heirs at Law and Dependents of Kenneth E. Asp, Deceased, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Charles F. Fitzgerald, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim brought for damages resulting in the accidental death of Kenneth E. Asp under the provision of Section 11, Article 16 of the Military and Naval Code of the State of Illinois. The deceased was a resident of the City of Chicago at the time of the fatal accident. He was attached to the 103rd Motor Transport Corps of the 33rd Division of the State Militia during the 1930 amiual summer encampment at Camp Grant, Illinois. A unit convoy in command of the deceased left Camp Grant for Chicago on Aug. 18th, 1930, and in course of their journey it became necessary to wait for another unit ahead to proceed. The deceased was directing traffic during the halt when a civilian’s car approached at a high rate of speed and in swerving to the right to avoid hitting a convoy truck he struck the deceased knocking him to the ground. The deceased was carried to the hospital in Elgin where he died about 8 hours later as a result of his injuries.

It appears that deceased lost his life in line of duty and it is recommended by the Attorney General in the event liability is established that claimant be allowed the sum hot to exceed Thirty-seven Hundred and Fifty ($3,750.00) Dollars. This court is of the opinion that said amount is reasonable and therefore recommends the claim be allowed in the sum of Thirty-seven Hundred and Fifty ($3,750.00) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1685
    Claude J. Coddington, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Edwin Hamilton, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Gael I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed to recover damages for injuries sustained as a structural iron worker on the Brandon Boad, Illinois Waterway.

The defendant through the Attorney General concedes that in the event the court is of the opinion that there is a liability that an award should be made not to exceed Three Hundred ($300.00) Dollars.

The court is of the opinion that the recommendation of the Attorney General in this case is fair and therefore recommends that an award be made in the sum of Three Hundred ($300.00) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1686
    John Baratona, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Snapp, Heise and Snapp, for claimant.

      Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant was employed by the State as a laborer on Brandon Boad Pool, being Project No. 6 of the Illinois Waterway. While engaged in his work, on November 18, 1929, he received an injury to his left eye which arose out of and in the course of his employment. It is conceded by the Attorney General that claimant is entitled to an award, and both parties agree the award should be computed on the basis of $13.00 per week for 120 weeks. The Attorney General insists that claimant has only suffered the loss of 75 per cent of the vision of the eye and that the award should be made on that basis. One who has lost 75 per cent of the vision of an eye has, for all practical purposes, lost the sight of that eye and we think the award should be on that basis. Claimant is, therefore, awarded the sum of $1,560.00.


text:
    (No. 1687
    Anna Marie Schwartz, Administratrix of the Estate of Frank M. Schwartz, Deceased, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Snapp, Heise and Snapp, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Frank M. Schwartz, claimant’s intestate, was a member of the State Highway Maintenance Police. On September 7, 1930, while in the performance of his duties, he received an injury from which he died the next day. The injuries causing his death arose out of and in the course of his employment. He left no children, but left claimant, Annie Marie Schwartz, his widow surviving. His salary was $175.00 per month.

It is conceded by the Attorney General that the employment of claimant’s intestate is governed by the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Under the provisions of paragraph (a) of section 7 of that Act claimant is entitled to an award of $3,750.00. It is therefore ordered that she be and she is awarded the sum of $3,750.00.


text:
    Arthur C. Upper, 1688; L. A. Stansbury, 1716, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Snapp, Heise and Snapp, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim brought as Nos. 1688 and 1716 relative to the claim of Arthur C. Upper and L. A. Stansbury, a chiropractor. It appears that the said Arthur C. Upper was operating an excavating machine known as dragline. It further appears that while claimant so employed his glove caught pulling his right hand in the machinery. The hand was badly lacerated and mashed.

The Attorney General comes and admits that claimant Upper received a temporary etotal disability and the State Physician Dr. Frederick, establishes a 90 per cent permanent incapacity in occupational loss of the use of claimant’s right hand.

It would appear that there is a liability on the part of defendant under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the Attorney General concedes that in the event of the court finding liability against the State that an award be made in the sura of Twenty-one Hundred Forty-two ($2,142.00) Dollars, and One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars for medical attention.

Therefore it is recommended that claimant Upper be allowed Twenty-one Hundred Forty-two ($2,142.00) Dollars and claimant Stansbury be allowed $100.00.


author: Mr. Chief Justice

text:
    (No. 1691
    Boyd McCane, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Feed Smith, for claimant.
    Oscae E. Caelsteom, Attorney General; Gael I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice

Clabity delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for additional compensation for services rendered the State of Illinois by the claimant in closing up of a National Guard Unit at Metropolis, Illinois. It appears that claimant performed patriotic and extraordinary services. There is no objection on the part of the Attorney General in the allowance of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars.

Therefore the court recommends that claimant he allowed the sum of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1694
    Edgar W. Josephson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Walteb E. Lindgeen, for claimant.
    Oscae E. Caelsteom, Attorney General; Gael I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim suffered as a" result of a fire which occurred on the 5th day of June, 1930, at the State Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture, Springfield, Illinois. The claimant was at the time of the alleged damages and is now, or at the time of the filing of the claim, an employee of the State of Illinois as a chemist in making tests, investigations, etc., relative to the Department of Agriculture experiments: It appears that claimant had clothing and other personal effects in the building at the time of the fire; that claimant was instrumental in assisting in saving property of the State of Illinois valued at around $70,000.00 and that in so doing he disregarded his own property, books and effects.

The claimant shows that he sustained a loss of One Hundred Fifty-nine ($159.00) Dollars. The Attorney General comes and recommends the allowance of this award provided this court is of the opinion that it is a claim that equity and good conscience would sustain. This court is of the opinion that wherein an employee of the State of Illinois unselfishly permits the destruction of his own property in order to save a large amount of property for the People of the State of Illinois, that he should be compensated.

Therefore, this court recommends that claimant be allowed and awarded the sum of One Hundred Fifty ($150.00) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1695
    Fay Walker, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Preihs & Preihs, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant was employed as an assistant to the Maintenance Patrolman in District No. 5, Division of Highways. His duties were to drive a truck, haul cinders, cement and other building materials and to assist with general maintenance work. On or about July 25th, 1930, while so employed claimant attempted to crank a large highway truck when the motor backfired causing the crank to strike claimant ’s arm breaking his wrist and throwing him to the ground. The bones of his right forearm wTere fractured and dislocated. The evidence shows that claimant was temporarily disabled for a period of approximately fourteen weeks and that he has suffered permanent disability of approximately 20 per cent.

The Attorney General comes and defends and recommends that if this court finds the claimant operated under the Workmen’s Compensation Act that claimant be allowed a compensation of $642.30.

Therefore it is recommended that claimant be awarded the sum of $642.30.


author: Mr. Justicb Thomas

text:
    (No. 1698
    Earl J. Barr, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Pence B.' Orb., for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justicb Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant was employed by the State as foreman of a concrete construction gang on the Brandon Eoad Pool, Project No. 6, of the Illinois Waterways. On May 10, 1929, while engaged at his duties he received an injury to his left hand and arm. The injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. We have carefully considered the evidence in the case and find he is entitled to be compensated for his injury in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. He is accordingly awarded the sum of $1,250.00.


text:
    (No. 1705
    Ervin H. Hoenig, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 16, 1931.

      Rehearing denied May 14, 1931.

    John Fred Gtlster, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank B. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant is chief cook at the Chester State Hospital for the Insane. He alleges that on July 4, 1930, he lifted a pan of food which caused him to suffer an abdominal rupture on the left side of his abdomen, and asks for an award for such alleged injury. The proof shows the rupture is a small one. The declaration does not state a cause of action and the proof does not show claimant entitled to any award. So far as the record shows he did not lose • any time from his work on account of the alleged injury, and the only expense it has caused him to incur is $15.00 for a truss. His injury does not come within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and there is no other statute making the State liable for injuries suffered by employees. The claim is therefore denied and the case dismissed.

On May 14,1931, upon petition for rehearing, the following additional opinion was filed:

Claimant has filed a petition for rehearing but it points out no facts or principles of law that were not considered by the court in the decision of the case, and is therefore denied.


text:
    (No. 1706
    John Bennett, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Pence B. Orb, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant was employed by the State as a laborer on Dresden Island Project No. 3 of the Illinois Waterway. On December 14, 1929, he was injured while at his work, which injury was found to be an inguinal hernia. The injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. He was operated on for the hernia and fully recovered. He was earning $27.00 per week and is entitled to compensation for 11 weeks. His physician’s bill was $125.00 which was not paid by the State. He is therefore awarded the sum of $273.50, the amount of those two items.


text:
    (No. 1707
    George Shaw, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Steely & Steely, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears that claimant was employed by the State Division of Highways and on or about March 25th, 1930, a blizzard arose which blocked many highways of the State and claimant on the Dixie Highway on Boute 1 where a large drift blocked the highway was assisting in clearing np the road, his fingers were caught pinching and tearing and cutting three fingers off the hand and fracturing two other fingers.

There appears to be no contention as to the fact that claimant was injured in line of duty and the Attorney General coming and suggests that if such liability appears to the court that the sum of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars, be a fair and reasonable award.

Therefore the court recommends that the claimant be allowed the sum of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1708
    Jesse F. McCoy, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Clabence B. Davis, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Cabl-strom, Attorney General; Carp I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for disability compensation and allowance of medical bills under the provisions of Article XVI, Section 11 of the State Military and Naval Code. The facts have been stipulated and it appears that in the course of his duties claimant suffered an injury by being thrown from a horse while on-active duty in Troop F, 106th Cavalry, Illinois National Guard and suffered an injury to his right wrist.

It appears from the brief and argument of the Attorney General that there is no dispute as to the extent of the injury, if there was one upon which this claim can be based.

The Attorney General recommends that claimant be allowed not less than the sum of $735.00 nor more than the sum of $1,415.00.

The court, after being fully advised in the premises, recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of $1,075. The court assumes that this relieves the State in full of all responsibility of the State, if any existed.


text:
    (No. 1709
    Michael S. Plaut, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    • John E. Sebat, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant’s cattle were tested for tuberculosis August 8, 1928. Six cows and a bull were found to be infected with the disease and were appraised and sold, the sale being made the 22nd day of August. One-third of the difference between the appraised value of the cattle and what they brought at the sale is $319.95. The Department of Agriculture refused to pay claimant because the record in its office showed the test was made July 22nd.and the sale was not made until August 23rd more than 30 days after the test. It is now conceded that an error was made in the department records and that the test was made on August 8th instead of July 22nd. The Attorney General concedes that if that be true claimant is entitled to an award.

Claimant is therefore allowed an award of $319.95.


text:
    (No. 1712
    George W. Brown, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    John L. Waliceb, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz,, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant was employed by the defendant State of Illinois to direct and supervise the shop work of convicts laboring* in his department. In April, 1929, while working in the upholstering shop he slipped and fell on a stairway suffering* a fracture of the radius bone of his left forearm. Three months later he was again injured in the shop as a result of a stabbing* affray. He was attacked by a disgruntled convict and stabbed twice in the chest and back.

The Attorney General comes and defends and recommends that an award be made not to exceed $1,125.00 nor less than $953.50.

The court is of the belief that an award should be allowed and recommends that claimant be awarded $1,125.00.


text:
    (No. 1717
    Percy Wolff, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Percy Wolff, pro se.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant was a member of the State Highway Maintenance Police and, on December 1, 1928, while in the performance of Ms duties, was struck by an automobile. As a result of the collision he suffered the following injuries: fracture of the femur of his left leg, a fracture to his skull, a compound fracture of the fibula and tibia of his left leg, a fracture of his left hand, and other external and internal injuries. These injuries necessitated his being kept in a hospital for 166 days where he received the services of nurses and physicians. Fourteen X-rays of his injuries were taken and he was furnished with a walking appliance before leaving the hospital. His medical, nurse and hospital bills aggregated the sum of $4,024.79, of which the State has paid $1,472.85 leaving $2,551.94 for which he is asking an award. The evidence shows one of the medical bills is $135.00 more than it should be, and the Attorney General concedes that claimant is entitled to an award for the above sum less that amount. Claimant is therefore awarded the sum of $2,416.94.


text:
    (No. 1719
    Alexander-Daley Lumber Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Barr, & Baer, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank B. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opiMon of the court:

The claimant files its claim for $1,281.41 for material furnished the State of Illinois through the Department of Purchases and Construction in connection with the construction of the Illinois Waterway near Joliet, Illinois.

The material was furnished by the claimant and was used by the State and has never been paid for and the claim is now due and unpaid.

The Attorney General comes and admits that the material was furnished by the claimant and was used by the State of Illinois and recommends to the court that the claim be allowed in the sum of $1,281.41.

The court makes an award for the sum of $1,281.41 to the complainant.


text:
    (No. 1720
    John Regis, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Barr. & Barb, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank B. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim brought to recover on account of damages to the claimant’s truck sustained on Oct. 2nd, 1929, when the truck slid off a certain turn table used by the State in the construction of the west wall of the Illinois Waterway construction program. The damages asked by claimant is in the sum of Three Thousand ($3,000.00) Dollars.

The Attorney General comes in person and consents that claimant be awarded the sum of Twelve Hundred ($1,200.00) Dollars.'

Therefore the court recommends that the sum of Twelve Hundred ($1,200.00) Dollars be awarded said claimant.


text:
    (No. 1721
    Ann E. Cochran, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Barr & Barr, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank B. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

„ The claimant is the wife of Fowler I. Cochran, who was employed by the State of Illinois in the capacity of a machine shop foreman in the State Penitentiary at Joliet and so engaged on the 14th day of February, A. D. 1930, the jacket he was wearing became accidently caught in a set screw on one of the machines in said shop, and he was dragged thereby into such machinery, thereby receiving serious injuries to his face, head and body and as a result of which he afterwards on November 20, A. D. 1930 died.

The work he was so doing is hazardous and comes within the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The claimant is entitled under the Workmen’s Compensation Act to the sum of $3,750.00.

We therefore award the claimant the sum of Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty ($3,750.00) Dollars.


author: . Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

text:
    (No. 1722
    William Corcoran, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Babb & Babb, for claimant.
    Oscab E. Carlstbom, Attorney General; Frank B. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   . Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by claimant on March 4th, 1929, when he fell into a ditch being dug by the State in the construction of the Illinois Waterway. Damages are asked in the sum of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars.

There has been showing made that proper signals were not given and proper protection made against this kind of an accident. However the court will not discuss these features because the Attorney General comes and consents to an allowance of One Hundred and Fifty ($150.00) Dollars.

Therefore the court recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1730
    Robert E. Lee, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Henry C. Warner, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the' opinion of the court:

The claimant while working on State Highway Route 25 near Flora, Hlinois, as an employee of the State of Illinois and while in line of duty as such employee it became necessary to put a spring in a batchmixer of the paving machine and while doing so the claimant slipped and his right hand caught in a bucket operating gears of a revolving drum. As the result his hand was badly crushed and mangled. As a result of the accident it became necessary to remove all four fingers of his right hand and also a part of the hand itself.

The Attorney General comes and defends and admits that claimant is entitled to recover Twenty-seven Hundred Seventy-five ($2,775.00) Dollars, according to the statutes in force at the time of the accident.

The court is of the opinion that this is reasonable, and measured by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Therefore this court recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of Twenty-seven Hundred Seventy-five ($2,775.00) Dollars.


text:
    Paul B. Johnson, 1733; Clyde I. Backus, 1743, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Claimants, pro se.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The above cases appear to arise out of claims for back salary for services rendered by claimant during the past biennium. It appears the Attorney General made investigation in both of the above cases and the investigation appears to this court to be thorough and systematic. The Attorney General recommends that claimant Johnson, No. 1733, be allowed the sum of $300.00 and that claimant Backus, No. 1743, be allowed the sum of $400.00.

The court, therefore, recommends that the claimant Johnson be allowed the sum of $300.00 and that said claimant Backus be allowed the sum of $400.00.


text:
    (No. 1735
    Willis Rendleman, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    William O. Edwards, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim brought to recover the cost of digging a well on a tract of land in Jackson County, known as Giant City State Park owned by the State of Illinois. It appears from the evidence herein that a letter written by H. H. Cleave-land, Director of the Department of Public Works and Buildings discloses that the well is very satisfactory, giving an abundant supply of good drinking water and is being used continuously by the visitors to Giant City Park. That the bill for this work is based on the price as charged the State in the digging of a second well and that in justice to the claimant the bill should be paid.

The bill is in the sum of $500.81 and on the recommendation of Director Cleaveland and no objections being made by the Attorney General, this court recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of $500.81.


text:
    (No. 1736
    Thomas R. Crabb, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Thomas E. Crabb, pro se.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court.:

The claimant, an automobile investigator, employed by the Secretary of State, was injured during the month of June, 1929, while riding a motorcycle furnished him by the office of Secretary of State. He was attempting to pass a motor vehicle on Eoute No. 4 and as he was passing his car caught the fender of the car he was attempting to pass and threw him from the motorcycle on the street car tracks and injured his face, head and mouth and left him permanently scarred and he files this claim for $128.00 for hospital bill and doctor bills paid by him. The court finds the amount paid to be fair and reasonable.

The claimant is allowed an award in the - sum of $128.00 for his hopsital bills and doctor bills.


text:
    (No. 1741
    Robert G. Ulrich, a Minor, by Fred C. Ulrich, his Father and Next Friend, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

      John F. Petit, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant is a minor who brings this action by his father and next friend.

The declaration charges that on May 29,1930, while claimant was driving his automobile along State Highway No. 6, near the St. Charles School for Boys, a horse owned by said school came on the highway in front of his automobile and that his automobile collided with the horse and by reason of such collision was so badly damaged that it cost $428.55 to repair it. The Attorney General has filed a demurrer to the declaration. The declaration wholly fails to state a cause of action against the State and the demurrer must be sustained.

The rule that the State is not liable for the negligence of its officers, agents and servants has been so often announced by this court that a further discussion of that question is not deemed necessary.

It is therefore ordered that the demurrer be and the same is sustained and the case dismissed.


text:
    (No. 1742
    Carlson Brothers, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Martin ft. Carlson, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl Í. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears that claimant furnished the Department of Purchases and Construction, upon order of those in authority, 1 oak revolving chair with pad, $13.05; 1 oak pedestal typewriter desk, $57.05; and 2 Faultless book covers, $5.04, making a total of $75.79. The price was fair and reasonable. And it further appearing that the reason the bill was not paid in the regular course was owing to the fact that claimant failed to present its bill before the lapse of the appropriation out of which it could have been paid. It further appears that the department that got the articles recommend the payment of the same.

Therefore an award is allowed claimant in the sum of $75.79.


text:
    (No. 1749
    Paul Jeffers, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Francis W. Purvis, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Caklstrom, Attorney General; Merriel F. Wehmhofe, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

The evidence in this case clearly shows that the claimant, Paul Jeffers, was injured while in line of duty as a member of the National Guard, on the 15th day of August, A. D. 1930, during encampment at Camp Grant. The claimant while in active service on his way to the railroad station with a truck loaded with military equipment, was struck by a truck driven by another member of the said company and was thrown from said truck and the fibula bone of the left leg was broken, and the left knee seriously wrenched and his right foot crushed. He was taken to St. Anthony Hospital at Eockford, Illinois, where he remained until September 12, 1930, when he was released and returned to his home in Sullivan. He went about on crutches for a month and then used a cane for two months. He was paid $63.75, being one-half of his actual service pay, for the month he was in the hospital. Prior to his entering camp he was employed as an ice man at a salary of $90.00 per month. There is no claim for doctor or hospital bills.

This case comes within the Military and Naval Code. We believe the claimant is entitled to the sum of sixty-three dollars and seventy-five cents for a period of three months, being the time he was totally disabled in accordance with the provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of Article XVI, Chapter 3 29, Smith-Hard Ill. Revised Statute 1929.

We therefore award the claimant the sum of $191.25.


text:
    (No. 1754
    John Edward Fischer, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    John Edward Fischer, pro se.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant and his brother Frank Fischer were each given warrants for $150.00 in payment of compensation due them under the provisions of the Illinois Bonus Act. Frank died without having collected the amount due on his warrant leaving claimant as his next of kin and only heir. The Adjutant General approved the payment of the warrant of claimant but the appropriation out of which it was payable had lapsed and it could not be paid. Claimant is asking an award for the amount of the warrant, which we think should be allowed. He is therefore awarded the sum of $150.00.


text:
    (No. 1764
    Wagner Printing Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    C. B. Young, Treas., for claimant.
    Oscar. E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank B. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for a balance due claimant on a contract entered into between claimant and the State of Illinois for printing for the Adjutant General’s office. The total amount of the, contract was $4,964.46. The State paid the sum of $4,444.95, being all the funds remaining in the appropriation for that purpose, leaving a balance due claimant of $519.51. It appears to the court that the work was satisfactory and the bill is reasonable. Therefore the court recommends to the Legislature that the claim be allowed for $519.51.


text:
    (No. 1765
    John E. Daley, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    Thomas A. Murphy, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank B. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim brought to recover for damages sustained while in the employ of the State of Illinois and in the line of duty. It appears that while riding on a motorcycle on duty assigned to Mm by a superior on Route 21 of the Illinois hard road system, he was struck by a truck without apparent fault as to him; that he received serious injuries requiring considerable medical attention.

The Attorney General comes and presents his position with the recommendation of the Superintendent of State Police that this claim be allowed in the sum of $3,327.30.

Therefore this court recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of Three Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-seven 30/100 ($3,327.30) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1772
    North Shore Material Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

    North Shore Material Company, pro se.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court: .

It appears claimant sold and delivered to the State of Illinois and same was accepted by the Division of Highways of the Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State of Illinois, sand, stone and gravel in the amount of $151.55. There is no objection to this claim but it was not paid on account of the lapse of appropriation for meeting claims of tMs kind.

Therefore, the court recommends that claimant be awarded the sum of $151.05.


author:
Mr. Justice Thomas
      Per Curiam:

text:
    (No. 1699
    Ed Peterson and Martha Peterson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 14, 1931.

      Rehearing denied September 8, 1931.

    Large & Reno, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimants are asking an award of $1,508.10 for property which they allege was destroyed by members of the Illinois National Guard on August 12,1930. Claimants leased a tract of ground near Camp Grant to be used by the Illinois National Guard on an over night march, the lease being for one day. Around eight o’clock in the evening of the 12th of August a granary building located some distance from where the soldiers were stationed caught fire and was destroyed with its contents,- and this claim is for the alleged value of the property lost. It is contended by claimants that fires built by the soldiers spread to the building and burned it. There is no positive evidence that such is the case; but if it be conceded that the property was destroyed through the negligence of the soldiers it does not follow the State is liable to pay for it, in the absence of a statute providing for such payment. (Joos. v. Ill. N. G., 257 Ill. 138; Haye v. State, 5 Ct. Cl. 359.) There is no statute making the State liable for damages caused by the conduct of members of the National Guard while on duty and we cannot allow the claim, and it is therefore denied and the case dismissed.

On September 8, 1931, upon petition for rehearing, the following additional opinion was filed:

Per Curiam:

This cause coming on to be heard upon a petition for rehearing received by the clerk on August 24, 1931, and.presented by him to this court on this the first day of the September, 1931, term, and the court being fully advised in the premises desires to call attention to Bule 30 of the Buies of the Court of Claims which reads as follows:

A party desiring a rehearing in any cause shall within fifteen days after filing of the opinion, file with the clerk a notice in writing of his intention to ask for a rehearing, and within twenty-five days after the filing of the opinion, he shall file with the clerk five copies of the petition with proof of service on opposite party. The petition shall state briefly the points supposed to have been overlooked, or misapprehended by the court with proper reference to the particular portion of the original abstract and brief relied upon and with authorities and suggestions precisely stated in support of the points. Argument in support of the petition will not be permitted.

In view of the foregoing rule it is the opinion of the court that the petition for rehearing should not be filed and the clerk is hereby ordered and directed to return the petition to the claimant together with a copy of this order.


author: Per Curiam:

text:
    (No. 1539 —
    Edward Egan, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 8, 1931.

   Per Curiam:

It appears that claimant suffered an accident on the morning of Saturday, August 3, 1929. The accident occurred about two miles west of Elgin, Illinois. It further appears that a convoy of seven National Guard Army Trucks were going westerly from Chicago to Camp Grant near Rockford, Illinois. The claimant with one William Hornbeck of Chicago who owned and operated a freig’ht truck with semi-trailer attached was proceeding easterly carrying a heavy load of freight. The claimant was riding in the right front seat. It appears that the Hornbeck truck was going at quite a rapid rate of speed and that the Government trucks were running very slow.

From all the evidence in this case this court is of the opinion that if due care was exercised by the driver of the truck and trailer in which claimant was riding any accident could be avoided and if there is any claim that the claimant herein would be against the owner and driver of the truck in which he was riding.

The Attorney General comes and raises the well established rule of law that the doctrine of respondent superior does not apply to a State in the exercise of purely Governmental functions. This is a rule that has been followed by the Court of Claims and conceded to be the law.

Taking this rule into consideration and the probable negligence of the driver and owner of the truck in which claimant was riding* the court is of the opinion.that this claim is without merit. Therefore, the claim is disallowed.


text:
    (No. 1544 —
    Frank McCann, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 8, 1931.

   Per Curiam:

This is a claim based upon an injury sustained by claimant while riding* with his friend about six or seven miles east of St. Charles, at which point there was a gap in the pavement on account of the construction of an overhead crossing. There was detour about one-half mile long* and it appears that the driver of the car, companion and friend of claimant, turned suddenly upon the detour and the driver lost control of the machine and the car went into a shallow ditch turning upside down and the claimant was injured considerably.

The Attorney General comes and presents the rule of the doctrine of respondent superior. There can be no question as to this rule which does not apply to the State in the exercise of purely Governmental functions.

However, it appears that the claimant and driver were acquainted with this road and the detour, having passed over same several times, could have observed the detour sign posts and that they had ample opportunity to know the possible danger in making the detour and therefore assumed the risk that they encountered.

Therefore, the court recommends that claim be disallowed.


text:
    (No. 1588 —
    Dawson McCulley, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 8, 1931.

    Dawson McCulley, pro se.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for $59.20 damages to the automobile of the claimant which he alleges was caused by a collision with a snowplow being operated by one of the employees of the State Highway Department on the evening of January 18, 1930. The declaration does not conform to the rules of the court and is not sworn to by the claimant as the rules provide and we would be justified in dismissing it for that reason; but we have carefully examined the evidence in the case and have reached the conclusion that the claimant is not entitled to an award. There is no evidence that the driver of the snowplow was guilty of any negligence but if he was the State is not liable for any injury caused by his negligence, it being fundamental that the State is not liable for the negligence of its officers, agents, and servants. The claim is therefore denied and the cause dismissed.


text:
    (Nos. 1605-1606 —

      Opinion filed September 8, 1931.

    Goodrich Silvertown, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.
   Per Curiam:

These two claims are for bills sold to the State by claimant aggregating in value $33.30. Since the claims were filed in this court they have been paid by the Department of Conservation, and as the cause of action has been satisfied they are dismissed.


text:
    (Nos. 1611-1612 — Consolidated
    Tony A. Fenoglio, No. 1611 and James Fletcher, No. 1612, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 8, 1931.

    T. W. Rennick and Louis A. Zearing, for claimants.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

As the facts upon which these two claims are based are identical the claims have been consolidated for hearing and decision. On the night of February 17, 1930 claimants were driving along State Highway No. 7, near the Village of DePue, in an automobile belonging to claimant, Fletcher. The night was very foggy and the pavement was slippery with ice. The fog was so dense that claimants could not see far ahead of their car, and the pavement was so icy that the employees of the Highway Department were spreading cinders on the hillsides and curves of the road, the cinders being hauled in a truck driven by Henry Morris. Near 12 o’clock at night, while the truck was being driven along the highway from one point where cinders were being spread to another, claimants ran into it from the rear and the automobile of Mr. Fletcher was seriously damaged by the collision, Mr. Fletcher himself more or less injured and claimant Fenoglio somewhat bruised and his clothing damaged. Mr. Fletcher is asking damages in the sum of $1,500.00 and Mr. Fenoglio in the sum of $100.00.

The evidence is conflicting as to the speed which claimants were driving, they saying they were driving 20 to 22 miles per hour, while the employees of the State testify they were driving much faster than that. The truck had a red rear light, a red lantern on the rear of the cab, a white light on the side and its head lights all burning before and at the time of the collision and was being driven between five and ten miles per hour.

Claimants suits are based on the theory that the injuries to them and their car were caused by the negligence of the employees of the State. The State is never liable for damages caused by the negligence of its officers, employees or agents. This rule of law has been so repeatedly announced by this and other courts that citation of authorities is not deemed necessary. In view of this established rule the State is not liable for the damages claimed even though they might have been caused by the negligence of its employees.

It is fundamental that before one can recover in an action of this kind two things must appear — the party causing the injury must have been guilty of negligence and the party injured must have been free from negligence. In this case the evidence clearly shows that the employees of the State were not guilty of negligence and that the injuries were not caused by any wrongful act of theirs. The proof further shows that had the claimants been using that care and caution which the conditions of the road and weather required of them at the time the collision would not have happened.

They are therefore not entitled to any award against the State in any view of the case. The claims are denied and the cases dismissed.


text:
    (No. 1622 —
    Fettes, Love & Sieben, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 8, 1931.

   Per Curiam:

Counsel for the claimant and the Attorney General have filed a stipulation in this cause that it shall be dismissed without costs, all costs having been paid. It is therefore ordered that the cause be and the same is hereby dismissed.


text:
    (No. 1623 —
    The Cairo Water Company, a corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 8, 1931.

   Per Curiam:

It appears that claimant filed a certificate of amendment in the Secretary of State’s office which certificate was construed by the Secretary of State to be an increase of the capitalization of claimant and claimant asserts that this amendment did not increase the capitalization but merely provided for an exchange of the capital stock. Claimant paid increased assessment for two years which claimant asserts is $100.00 per year more than should be collected. There is no contention on the part of the Attorney General or the Secretary of State that such collection was not made on account of error. It would appear to this court that this case grows out of a mutual mistake of facts and in view of all the facts and circumstances disclosed in the record the court recommends that the claimant be allowed the sum of Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1658 —
    John Stuart Coonley, Jr. and Frank A. Rehm, Executors of the Last Will and Testament of Phoebe Seipp, Deceased, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 8, 1931.

      Rehearing denied November 4, 1931.

    Rubens, Fischer, Mosser & Barnum, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

This claim is for the refund of $1,161.05 inheritance, taxes alleged to have been erroneously paid because of a mutual mistake of fact. The tax was paid by the executors of Phoebe Seipp, deceased. The facts have been stipulated, the stipulation showing: that Phoebe Seipp died October 28, 1927; that an appraiser was appointed to appraise the property of her estate; that on May 3,1928, the County Court of Cook County entered an order fixing the amount of inheritance tax due at the sum of $57,761.06; that on April 27, 1928, the executors paid the County Treasurer of Cook County $54,873.01, being the amount of the tax fixed by the County Court less 5% discount; that among the assets of the estate were 240 shares of the preferred stock of the Denver and Bio Grande Railroad Company which were valued by the appraiser at $12,420.00 and that $1,161.05 of the tax paid was tax upon that stock; that on March 19, 1929, the executors for the first time discovered that stock was worthless; that the value of the stock was given to the executors by a broker who mistakenly gave them the value of the stock of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company, a solvent corporation, instead of the stock of the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Company, an insolvent corporation, and that the executors' and appraiser mistakenly believed the shares of stock owned by the deceased were shares of stock of the solvent corporation; that on November 12, 1929, the County Court of Cook County entered an order amending the appraiser’s report and fixing the amount of tax due at the sum of $56,538.90; that in December, 1929, the executors filed their petition, duly sworn to by them, with the State Treasurer for a refund of $1,161.05 of the tax paid and attached to the petition a certified order of the County Court amending* the appraiser’s report and fixing the tax due at $56,538.90; and that the State Treasurer denied the prayer of the petition and refused to refund the tax.

A copy of the petition presented to the State Treasurer is attached to the stipulation and made a part thereof. It appears from this petition that the same facts were submitted to the State Treasurer as are submitted to this court. Section 10 of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that when any amount of an inheritance tax has been erroneously paid to the State Treasurer it shall be lawful for him on satisfactory proof to refund the amount so erroneously paid to the party who made the payment, provided application for repayment shall be made within two years from the date of the payment. The Inheritance Tax Act is a complete code, and the only provision it contains for the refund of a tax erroneously paid is Section 10. That section makes it the duty of the State Treasurer to refund any part of a tax erroneously paid if application therefore is made within two years; but it also clothes him with the power to determine from the proofs submitted to him whether or not the payments were erroneous. Within two years after making the alleged erroneous payment claimants made application to the State Treasurer to have it refunded, submitting to him the same proofs submitted to this court. He denied their application and refused to refund the tax. Whether his decision was right or wrong is not a matter for this court to determine. Where the legislature has given an officer, commission, or department of the State government power to act and decide upon a question the court of claims has no jurisdiction to review the decision. (Moline Plow Co. vs. State, 5 Ct. Cl. 93; Linden vs. State, 5 Ct. Cl. 150; Gray vs. McCance, 14 Ill. 343; McGhee vs. Wright, 16 Ill. 555; Bennett vs. Farrar, 2 Gil. 598.)

The claim is therefore denied and the case dismissed.


author: Per Gviriam:

text:
    (No. 1664 —
    D. L. Marshall, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 8, 1931.

      Rehearing denied January 12, 1932.

   Per Gviriam:

This is a claim brought to recover damages on account of injury to a horse on which the claimant was riding in the County of Clay in the State of Illinois. The accident occurred on the 28th day of February 1930. The claimant alleges that a State Truck driven by M. A. Newton struck the horse and caused the damages. The Attorney General comes and defends and states that the truck driver was going at a rate of speed of about eight or ten miles per hour; that the truck was passing a spring wagon going in the same direction. The claimant contends that he was riding on the shoulder of the road. However, there is no evidence to show that' the truck got oif the road or the cement slab. It does appear that the horse got frightened and perhaps the truck driver got alarmed and therefore a collision. This court fails to find that the driver of the truck was negligent but that the truck was going at a reasonable rate of speed. It is regrettable for claimant to lose his horse but from all the facts and circumstances the court is of the opinion that the State of Illinois should not assume responsibility in an action of this kind.

Therefore the court recommends that the claim be disallowed.


text:
    (No. 1678 —
    Seth Seiders, Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 8, 1931.

   Per Curiam:

It appears that the claimant is a corporation organized and known as a Delaware Corporation, a foreign corporation and that they desire to do business in the State of Illinois and that they filed with the Secretary of State information as required by law as to the amount of business and the amount of property which such corporation would have in this State during their first year of business. It appears also that the Secretary of State on information furnished by claimant did compute the franchise fee for doing business in the State during its first year. The claimant now contends that they should have been taxed at a less percentage than the estimate indicated and should be rebated the difference.

It appears to this court that the Secretary of State followed the directions of the Legislature in computing and collecting taxes and if there was an error in the statements of claimant as to their volume of business or capital stock it was not the fault of the Secretary of State or the State of Illinois and consequently this court is of the opinion that the law was followed in this transaction and the court therefore recommends that claim be disallowed.


text:
    (No. 1683 —
    George G. Bates, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 8, 1931.

   Per Curiam:

This is a claim brought to recover for personal injuries under the Workmen’s Compensation Act or the provisions thereof.

It appears that claimant has been a janitor for a number of years under the direct supervision of the Secretary of State and while thus engaged on February 20, 1930, he alleges to have accidently fallen from a table to the floor while handling mail sacks. From the injury thus received he claimed to have suffered some permanent disability. From the records in this case it appears that claimant was absent from his duties for a period of three months and during said time he received his full salary. It further appears that a report of a State physician following a thorough physical examination finds no permanent disability.-

This court is of the opinion that the State of Illinois treated the claimant very fairly. He drew his full salary and that should off-set his claim for medical service and under the Workmen’s Compensation Act we do not believe he could recover a greater amount. His was not a hazardous occupation and should not be considered extra hazardous and the court believes that the State of Illinois has been kind and generous to the claimant and that he has received all that he is entitled to.

Therefore the court recommends that the claim be disallowed.


text:
    (No. 1740 —
    Walter J. Ruediger, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 8, 1931.

    Max Murdock, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

This claim is for services and expenses of claimant as a member of the committee designated by the Director of Registration and Education for the Profession of Real Estate Brokers pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Administrative Code. At the time the services were rendered and the expenses incurred for which this claim is filed there was ample funds in the appropriation made to the Department of Registration and Education to pay them, but before application for payment was made the appropriation lapsed. It is conceded by the Director of the Department of Registration and Education and the Attorney General that the State owes claimant for services and expenses rendered as a member of such committee the sum of $1,003.98. His claim is therefore allowed and he is awarded the sum of $1,003.98.


text:
    (No. 1751 —
    Oscar Pihl, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 8, 1931.

    Walter E. Lindgren, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank E. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant was employed by the State -as a laborer in the Division of Hig’hways and on December 31, 1926, while engaged in his work, received an injury to his foot which resulted in his being unable to work for about eight months. On November 27, 1929, while engaged at his work, he was struck by an automobile resulting in an injury to his head and bruises on his person. This last injury incapacitated him for work for about six weeks. He has filed his claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for $3,000.00.

The record shows that the State paid all his hospital and doctors hills and paid him his regular wage of $4.50 per day during a considerable portion of the time he was unable to work on account of the first injury and $2.25 a day for a part of the time. It also shows that he was paid his regular wage of $4.50 during the time he was incapacitated by the second injury. The injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment, and the State became liable to compensate him in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. From the evidence on file we find that he has received from the State all that he was entitled to receive and the claim is therefore denied and the case dismissed.