text:
    (No. 712
    Claimant awarded $1,250.00.)
    Robert Van Batson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Governmental function — when State not liable. The State in conducting the Southern Illinois State Penitentiary exercises a governmental function and is not liable for injuries sustained by its employe therein while in the performance of their duty.
    SociAi. justice and equity — award may be made. Where it appears that an employee of the State was injured while in the discharge of his duty, an award may be made to him as a matter of social justice and equity.
    Judson E. Harriss, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, Robert Van Batson, on the 12th day of August, 1918, an employe as a guard in the Southern Illinois Penitentiary, while in the employment of the defendant, State of Illinois, and in'line of his duties and without any negligence on Ms part, was attacked by . a vicious inmate or prisoner of said State Institution, and struck on the head by said prisoner with a heavy iron spittoon, inflicting great bodily injuries that are evidently permanent. The facts are very fully set out in the declaration and supported by ample uncontradicted proof; and are, briefly stated, about as follows: The convict, Johnson, was paroled for a time, and not being well behaved, he was arrested and the State authorities at S. I. P. requested to take him back to prison. Van Batson, claimant, was given orders and empowered to go arrest and bring the said prisoner back to prison. Johnson, it is shown by the evidence, was a mean, rather vicious fellow, and Van Batson asked permission to take a gun for his entire safety; but was denied one and sent out to get the convict and fetch him in.

The claimant got the prisoner and a sheriff who had imprisoned the negro, handcuffed him and got aboard the cars and started back to the prison with him; and at an unguarded moment the prisoner grabbed up a heavy iron cuspidor and with lightning speed struck claimant a terrific blow on his head, about the back of the head and above the ear, inflicting an ugly wound, rendering claimant unconscious and helpless for a long period of time. The prisoner got away, but was in a few hours killed while resisting arrest. The blow on the head and back of the left ear caused a slight brain concussion and paralysis of the nerve leading to the ear. Amongst other troubles and liabilities, it caused claimant to be deaf in left ear. He was carefully examined by surgeons and specialists and treated for the injuries. Dr. Leo Steiner of the Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary of Chicago examined the left ear and found that claimant was entirely deaf in left ear as a result 'of said injury. As a result, claimant was unfitted for his work at prison and gave up the job and went back Into the employ of the Illinois Central R. R. Co., for which he had worked for many years before he became a prison guard. He files a bill of particulars, as follows:

For maintenance at home of I. C. Batson............................$ 25.00
Nursing ........................................................... 40.00
R. R. Taxi fare .................................................... 16.00
Attending physician on trip ........................................ 5.00
X-Ray Photo of Skull ................ 5.00
Dr. Mitchell .........................°............................. 2.00
Dr. Smith ............'............................................. 2.00
Total Expense .................'................................$ 95.00

The State paid the remainder of the hill and expenses and kept him on his regular salary during his two weeks’ illness and until his voluntary resignation in October, 1918, same year he was injured. He went back and secured the same employment he had worked at prior to his going to the prison and getting employment. The evidence is clear that his hearing in the left ear is permanent, but no other physical permanent disabilities are disclosed which would interfere with his employment. He seems to have gotten back the same job of work with the E. E. Co., he had before he left and went to the S. I. P. for employment. His deafness is a partial handicap to his working capacity. The extent is not shown and it is difficult for the court to guess at it. While, in such cases as this, the court has held that the State is not, as a matter of law, liable, yet as a matter of social justice, equity and good conscience, the claimant should be compensated for the very serious, permanent, total loss of the hearing in his left ear.

We accordingly recommend that the legislature appropriate the sum of $1,250.00 as compensation to claimant.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Mr. Justice Leech

license: Public Domain

text:
    (No. 713
    Claimant awarded $631.00.)
    A. C. Clark & Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — refund may loe made. This case is similar to that of Serenden Milling Go. v. State, supra, and the decision of the court there announced governs this claim.
    Bulkey, Moore & Tallmadge, for claimant.
    Oscar, E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court: -

This is a claim for the recovery of franchise tax amounting to $631.00, erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois in the year 1921.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $631.00.


text:
    (No. 714
    Claimant awarded $5,700.00.)
    Fansteel Products Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax- — when refund awarded. This case is similar to that of Herenden Milling Co. v. State, supra, and the decision of the court there announced governs this claim.
    Levinson, Becker, Schwartz & Frank, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the recovery of franchise tax erroneously paid the State of Illinois in the years 1920, 1921 and 1922, amounting in all to $5,700.00.

Demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $5,700.00.


text:
    (No. 715
    Claimant awarded $1,122.58.)
    George C. Peterson Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund may he awarded. This case is controlled by the decision of the court in Herenden Milling Co. v. State, supra.

    John A. Bussian, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for refund of certain portions of franchise taxes erroneously paid by above claimant to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, for the years 1920, 1921 and 1922; total excess tax paid amounting to $1,122.58.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $1,122.58.


text:
    (No. 716
    Claimant awarded $750.00.)
    Viola Smith Mondhink, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Governmental function — State not liable. State Hospital Jacksonville. The State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees while in the performance of their duty.
    Social justice and equity — award may be made. When it appears that claimant at the time of the injury was engaged in a hazardous employment, the court may enter an award to her as an act of social justice and equity.
    Workman’s compensation act — may be basis of award. The rules and regulations of the Workman’s Compensation Act may he taken into consideration in fixing compensation awarded to claimant.
    Frank M. Ramey, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes before the court on a declaration filed by Viola Smith Mondhink, claimant, which alleges that on July 24, 1922, claimant was in the employ of a certain institution, in the possession of, and operated by the State of Illinois, known as the Jacksonville State Hospital, located at Jacksonville, Hlinois, which institution was managed and controlled for the purpose of caring for certain insane persons of the State of Illinois, and among said insane persons there was a certain patient named Fern Cameron, who was a dangerous charge of said institution; that on said day she was unmarried, her name at that time being Viola Smith, that she after-wards, on October, 1922, married Mr. Perley Mondhink; that on the date first above mentioned she was employed by the State as a nurse in said institution, and that as such it was her duty to work in and about what is known as the “Hydro Room” at said institution; that while she was engaged in what is known as “packing” certain patients of said institution, said Fern Cameron attacked claimant, and struck her over the head with a stone water pitcher and hit her about the face and head with such force as to break said water pitcher; and also struck her a violent blow on the left forearm, causing a severe cut and wound to the plaintiff on the left fore-arm, the scar being of about three inches in length; that she ivas confined in a hospital for about three weeks, and that she has undergone great pain and become highly nervous as a result of said attack.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is allowed, as a matter of law.

. The testimony of claimant, and that of her physician, Dr. Z. Y. Kimball, also the testimony of Dr. Thomas G. McLin, assistant managing officer, Dr. H. A. Chapin, and Dr. Trip-peer, has been carefully examined, and while there is no liability on the part of the State of Illinois to make an award in this cas§, as a matter of social justice and equity, we feel that an award should be made, owing to the fact that claimant was injured while in the employ of the State, and that the compensation should be figured according to the rules and regulations practiced under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and we accordingly award to said claimant the sum of $750.00.


text:
    (No. 718
    Claim awarded $237.50.)
    Kennedy Oil Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund may be made. This case is controlled by the decision of the court in the case of Herenden Milling Oo. y. State, supra.

    Brown, Hay & Stephens, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the refund of franchise taxes erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois by claimant, in the years 1921, 1922 and 1923, amounting in all • to $712.50.

The Demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $237.50.


text:
    (No. 719
    Claimant awarded $28,041.34.)
    American Brake Shoe and Foundry Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — refund, for overpayment may he awarded. Where there is an overpayment, under protest, of a franchise tax and initial fees by a corporation, the court may on grounds of social justice and equity enter an award in favor of claimant for the overpayment. (Iseo Go. v. State, 4, C. C. Rep. 171.) ’ ■ *
    Whitman & Miller, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes before the court on declaration filed by claimant, in which it alleges that in the year 1920 it paid to the State of Illinois the sum of $6302.75, under protest, for franchise tax claimed to be due from it by the State of Illinois on 400,000 no par value shares of common stock; that said sum was unlawfully collected from claimant by the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois; overpayment of franchise tax for the year ending June 30, 1921, $6324.91; overpayment of franchise tax for year ending June 30, 1922, $7438.88; overpayment of initial fee for 1921, $1136.13; overpayment of franchise tax for the year ending June 30, 1923, $6,838.67; making a total overpayment of initial fees and franchise taxes made by claimant to the Secretary of State of Illinois, under protest and duress, of $28,041.34.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is sustained, as a matter of law.

On the grounds of social justice and equity, we award claimant the sum of $28,041.34.


text:
    (No. 721
    Claimant awarded $1,560.00.)
    Society for Visual Education Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when award mil be made for refund. This case is con trolled by the decision of the court in Alfred Decker & Cohn, Inc. v. State.

    Brown, Hay & Stephens, for claimant.
    ■Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Pitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the recovery of $1560.00 franchise tax erroneously paid the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois in the years 1921 and 1922.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is sustained, as a matter of law*

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $1560.00:


text:
    (No. 730
    Claimant awarded $4,250.00.)
    Alfred Decker & Cohn Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund will be made. Tax illegally assessed. Where the franchise tax has been illegally assessed by the. Secretary of State, and is paid, the claimant is entitled to a refund of the difference between the amount of the tax illegally paid and the amount of the tax legally due the State.
    Johnson, Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes before the court on declaration and amended declaration, filed by claimant in above entitled cause, to recover moneys paid to the Secretary of State under duress as and for its franchise taxes for the year beginning July 1,1921, and ending June 30,1922, in excess of the amount legally due to the State under the provisions of the General Corporation Act. Declaration sets forth that the total authorized capital stock of $4,000,000 was divided into 25,000 shares of preferred stock of the par value of $100 per share and 100,000 shares of common stock without nominal or par value, which was issued and paid for in full in property of the appraised value of $1,500,000 at the time of the organization of the corporation, all of which is fully set forth in the charter of claimant on file in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois; that the subscription list copied into and forming a part of the application and charter of this corporation showed that all the authorized capital stock was subscribed for, the par value preferred stock being subscribed for at $100 per share and the common stock without nominal or par value being subscribed for at $15 per share; that said charter and the application therefor showed said subscriptions and the names of the subscribers and that the entire amount of the stock was subscribed and paid for in cash and property; that between the first day of February and the first day of March, 1921, it duly executed and filed in the office of the Secretary of State the annual report required by law, and in said report set forth that it was willing to be assessed and to pay a franchise tax upon all of its authorized capital stock and also that its total authorized capital stock consisted of preferred stock in the amount of $2,500,000 and 100,000 shares of no par value common stock, as appears by said report on file in the office of the Secretary of State; that prior to May 15, 1921, Louis L. Emmerson, Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, sent to it a written notice, wherein the claimant was notified to pay as and for its franchise taxes for the year beginning July 1,1921, the sum of $6250, stating that the same was computed upon the authorized capital stock and setting forth the penalties provided in the Genearl Corporation Act and hereinafter set forth, stating that said penalties would be imposed upon the claimant unless said tax was paid on or before July 31, 1921; that said notice further set forth that the tax was reckoned at the rate of five cents per one hundred dollars upon the authorized capital stock, consisting of $2,500,000 of preferred par value stock and 100,000 shares of no par value stock, making a total of $12,500,000; and claimant alleges that in arriving at said total of the authorized capital stock the Secretary of State considered each share of no par value to be of the par value of $100 a share and hence assessed the total authorized capital stock of this corporation at $12,500,000, instead of $4,000,000, and computed the tax rate upon said former figure; that there was no authority in law for the Secretary of State to make such assessment and that its authorized capital stock should have been assessed as of the sum of $4,000,000, and that the tax should be computed upon that figure at the rate of five cents for each one hundred dollars, and that upon such computation its proper tax should have been $2000 instead of the sum of $6250.00, as set forth in said notice; that on July 25, 1921, it paid to the State of Illinois, by payment to Louis L. Emmerson, as Secretary of State for the State of Illinois, the sum of $6250.00, and claimant alleges that the sum of $4250.00 of the moneys so paid was not legally due to State of Illinois under the statute imposing said tax and that the Supreme Court has since decided that the assessment of franchise taxes by the Secretary of State against corporations upon a figure derived by assessing each share of no par-value stock as though it were of the par value of $100 a share was erroneous and not authorized by the statute, and that the Supreme Court further decided that the Secretary of State should assess the corporation upon the total amount of its authorized capital stock as shown by its charter, whether the authorized capital stock was divided into shares of par value or shares of no par value, and that the total amount of authorized capital stock means the total sum of money necessary to be paid into the treasury of the corporation to secure the issuance of the total number of shares of stock authorized by the articles of incorporation, and claimant alleges that said sum of money necessary to secure the issuance of all the shares of stock authorized by its articles of incorporation was $4,000,000; that it was induced to make said excessive payment of $6,250.00, of which $4,250.00 was not legally due, by means of duress and through fear that the State of Illinois would enforce the statute and impose the penalties provided in the statute applying to corporations which fail to pay their franchise taxes; that the statutes of the State of Illinois provided a penalty of 5% per month for each month, beginning with August, during which the tax remained unpaid; that the statute further authorized the Secretary of State to cause the personal property of, the delinquent corporation to be seized and sold for the payment of the tax; that the statute provided that all contracts made by the corporation while delinquent in the payment of such tax should be unenforceable and that no action could be maintained upon them either at law or in equity; that the statute further provided that the tax should be a lien upon both the real and personal property of the corporation until paid and directed the Attorney General to file an information in equity against the delinquent corporation for the dissolution of the corporation. In the amendment to its original declaration claimant asks damages in the total sum of $6,250.00, setting forth that the General Corporation Act imposing said franchise tax is unconstitutional.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

We note that one of the grounds of complaint in each of the franchise cases which have come up for hearing is that the Secretary of State, in computing the amount of the authorized capital stock of each of the claimants, took the total amount of the authorized capital stock represented by the par value shares and added to it a sum derived by multiplying the number of no par value shares authorized by one hundred; the total of these two sums he took as the total amount of the authorized capital stock and computed the tax in each instance on that sum. He had no authority in law to do this, but should have taken the issue price of the no par shares and multiplied it by the number of no, par shares and added that result to the total par value of the par shares. The State has collected this money without right, and we, in equity and good conscience, award claimant the sum of $4,250.00, the amount paid in excess of that which it was legally responsible for under the General Corporation Act.


text:
    (No. 731
    Claimant awarded $1,178.11.)
    H. W. Gossard Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund awarded. This case is controlled by the decision of the court in the case of Berenclen Milling Go. v. State, supra.

    Moran, Paltzer & O ’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim to recover the franchise taxes erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, by the above named, claimant in the years 1921 and 1922, the excess tax paid by claimant amounting 'to $1,178.11.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

We award claimant above named the sum of $1,178.11, on the grounds of equity and social justice.


text:
    (No. 732
    Claimant awarded $3,800.00.)
    H. Channon Company, a Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — volien will he awarded. This case is controlled by the decision of the court in Herenden Milling Go- v. State, supra.

    Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward E. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the refund of franchise taxes erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, by above claimant, in the years 1920 and 1921; total excess paid by claimant amounting to $3,800.00.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of social justice and equity, we award claimant the sum of $3,800.00.


text:
    (No. 734
    Claimant awarded $1,214.75.)
    Natures Rival Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund will he awarded. This case is controlled by the decision of the court in the case of Herenden Milling Go. v. State, supra.

    Moran, Paltzer & O ’Donnell, for claimant.

    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the refund of franchise taxes erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, by above named claimant, in the years 1921 and 1922, total excess paid by claimant amounting to $1,214.75.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $1,214.75.


text:
    (No. 735
    Claimant awarded $5,000.00.)
    Brennan Packing Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund will be awarded. This case is controlled by the decision of the court in Herenden Milling Go. v. State, supra.

    Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.

    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for refund of franchise taxes erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, by above named claimant in the year 1921, in the amount of $5,000.00.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of social justice and equity, we award claimant the sum of $5,000.00.


author: Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

text:
    (No. 736
    Claimant awarded $3,000,00.)
    Louise Wilson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Personal injury — when State liable for injury to inmate. An award may be made for injuries sustained by an inmate of a State Institution where the injury was caused by the negligence of an attendant.
    T. W. Smurr, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; A. E. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed by an inmate of the Kankakee State Hospital for the Insane about March 15, 1922. In a former presentation of this case it appeared that the injuries complained of were caused by a fellow patient, but on a subsequent hearing it appeared to the court that the injury com- • plained of was occasioned by a nurse employed in said hospital, who closed a window so violently and suddenly that the glass fell out and injured the eye of the patient. According to the rule of this court an award would not be justified in a case where the injury was sustained through the action of a fellow patient. ■ However, in a case where the injury complained of appears to be through the negligence of an attendant it would appear that a liability on the part of the State would prevail. The loss of an eye is very serious, not alone by reason of the loss of sight but the great pain and sorrow would also be an element to consider. „

Upon reconsideration of this case it is the opinion of the court that an allowance be made the complainant. Therefore it is recommended that the claimant be allowed the sum of $3,000.00.


text:
    (No. 740
    Claimant awarded $6,768.33.)
    Orange Crush Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund may he awarded. This case is similar to that of Herenden Milling Go. v. State, supra, and the decision there announced governs this case.
    Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E, Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the refund of franchise taxes erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, by claimant, in the years 1.921 and 1922, amounting.in all to $6)768.33.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant, the sum of $6,768.33.


text:
    (No. 739
    Claimant awarded $5,896.64.)
    Independent Pneumatic Tool Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund awarded. This case is similar to that of Alfred. Oeelcer £ Cohn, Inc. v. State, supra, and the decision of the court in that case governs this claim.
    Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the recovery of franchise taxes erroneously paid to the Secretary of State, of the State of Illinois, in the years 1921, 1922 and 1923, amounting* in all to $5,896.64.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award ' claimant the sum of $5896.64.


text:
    (No. 741
    Claimant awarded $4,275.00.)
    Vesta Battery Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund may he made. This case is similar to that of Herenden Milling Go. v. State, supra, and the decision of the court in that case governs this claim.
    Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for refund of franchise taxes erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, by above claimant, in the years 1920 and 1921, in the total sum of $4275.00.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award above claimant the sum of $4275.00.


text:
    (No. 742
    Claimant awarded $9,266.96.)
    Victor Chemical Works, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund may le made. This case is similar to that of Herenden Milling Oo. v. State, supra, and the decision of the court in that case governs this claim.
    Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for refund of portion of franchise taxes erroneously paid by above named claimant to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, in the years 1921 and 1922, total excess tax paid amounting to $9266.96.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $9266.96.


text:
    (No. 746
    Claimant awarded $3,993.34.)
    Balaban & Katz Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund may be made. This case is similar to that of Herenden Milling Co. v. State, supra, and the decision of the court in that case governs this claim.
    Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the refund of franchise taxes erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, by the above named claimant, in the years 1920 and 1921, amounting in all to $3993.34.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $3993.34.


text:
    (No. 749
    Claimant awarded $3,502.50.)
    Channel Chemical Company, a Corporation (Changed to) O’Cedar Corp’n, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund may he made. This case is similar to that of Herenden Milling Co. v. State, supra, and the decision of the court in that case governs this claim.
    Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for refund of certain portion of franchise tax erroneously paid by above named claimant to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, for the year ending June 30,1921, total excess tax paid amounting to $3502.50.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of social justice and equity, we award above named claimant the sum of $3502.50.


text:
    (No. 750
    Claimant awarded $6,043.35.)
    Spoehr’s, a Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund may he made. This case is similar to that of Herenden Milling Co. v. State, supra, and the decision of the. court in that case governs this claim.
    Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the refund of franchise taxes erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, by claimant, the total amount paid in excess of tax due being $6043.35.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $6043.35.


text:
    (No. 751
    Claimant awarded $3,792.25.)
    West Indies Fruit Importing Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund may he made. This case is similar to that of Herenden Milling Co. v. State, supra, and the decision of the court in that case governs this claim.
    Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court :

This is a ■ claim for the refund of franchise taxes erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, by claimant, in the years 1920 and 1922, in the amount of $3792.25.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $3792.25.


text:
    (No. 757
    Claimant awarded $3,562.50.)
    United States Cold Storage Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund for overpayment may he made. Where there has been an overpayment 'of a franchise tax, the court may on the ground of social justice and equity award a refund of the excess paid.
    Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the refund of certain portions of franchise taxes paid by above named claimant, erroneously, to the Secretary of State, of the State of Illinois, in the years 1921, 1922 and 1923, total excess paid over amount due being $3562.50.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained. ■

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $3562.50.


author: Mr. Justice Phillips

text:
    (No. 765
    Claimant awarded $3,500.00.)
    James Denny, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Governmental function — when State not liable. Chester State Hospital. The State in conducting the Chester State Hospital exercises a governmental function and is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees therein while in the performance of their duty.
    Social justice and equity — award may be made. Where an employee of the State is engaged in a hazardous employment as a guard in the Criminal Insane Department of its State Institution and is injured while in the performance of his duty by an inmate of the institution, in the interest of social justice and equity he is entitled to an award.
    J. Fred Gilster, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, J ames Denny, brings this suit to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been inflicted July 22, 1923, while employed as a guard at the Chester State Hospital at Menard, Illinois.

The declaration alleges that the claimant at said time and place while in line of his duties was seriously stabbed and cut in the breast and lungs by an insane inmate of said institution while he was endeavoring to guard a number of such inmates who had broken out and were endeavoring to escape from the hospital. He was alone at the time and aided in the care of such inmates and but for an early interference of other guards would more than likely been killed.

After the injury was received the claimant was given every possible consideration by the State. His salary was continued at the same rate and his doctor, bills were all paid. When he was hurt he was earning $104.00 per month with two meals per day furnished by the institution.

He claims that he is only able to earn $12.50 per week now in consequence of his physical disability so received-Evidence shows that he has a wife and two children, the children are the ages of 3 years and under. He states that he has lost considerable in weight, that Ms color is now bad and his circulation poor and that when he contracts cold, Ms side pains him severely and that he does not feel nearly as good as he did six months ago. He was a carpenter before this occurred and claims that he could not perform manual labor to the same extent that he did before the injury and that he believes that Ms disability is from 30 to 50 per cent.

He admits that he was examined for the National Guard for the World war and he was rejected for the regular army about a year before he was employed by the State. Evidence shows that he never had any heart trouble before Ms rejection from the army, but that had nothing to do with his disability claims.

Dr. Max Azman said he knew James Denny before he was hurt and he was a man of good physique and that his complexion was good and that he was of robust body and he said, now he is pale and has a waxy appearance. His eyes are dull and his face is drawn.

He claims that he was called to see this man immediately after he had received the stab. He found he had been stabbed about an inch below the left nipple and the knife penetrated the pleural cavity. There was a great loss of blood and a great deal of blood entered the pleural cavity and that air also entered the pleural cavity, that he finds the pleural cavity has never cleared up of the blood and air since that time and that it is now creating a bulging in the back of the left lung, which is easily seen with the naked eye. As a result of this injury he is apt to take cold and contract pleurisy and unless there is some way to entirely overcome the condition of the pleural cavity, the result will be a shortening of his life. He further states that this condition in Ms opimon is permanent, also the disability might be helped by an operation, but this is by no means certain, that he looked as though he might have lost a good deal of weight. He further states that he finds the patient’s breathing capacity to be abnormal in the left side and that he found by percussion that the lung has been compressed to a certain extent and is not functioning properly and that this might have a tendency toward tuberculosis.

The doctor has an. opinion that the physical disability ranges from 30 to 50 .per cent and that it may increase. He further states that he finds the condition advanced since the time he examined him before in December.

James Denny testified that the claimant was now much thinner than he was before he received the stab, has bad color, his shoulders are dropped, his face is thin and that he does not carry himself or walk as he did before. He claims that he is unable to climb steps as he did before. A number of other witnesses testify along about the same line as the preceding one and claim' that his physical condition prior to this was good, that since this his complexion is bad, that he does not walk erect and seems much feebler than before.

Dr. Stubblefield however testifies on behalf of the State that he is the managing officer of the Chester State Hospital and that the claimant was employed there as guard and acted as turnkey, that the claimant is doing about the same duties now that he did before, that he saw him shortly after the outbreak and the infliction of this wound and that he came back to the institution on the 9th day of August, but left again on the 24th, came back again September 5th, since which time he had performed the same duties that he did prior to the injury, until December 26th, when he quit and that he did not see much difference in appearance, that he did not make much complaint to him of feeling bad.

Clyde F. Martin testifies to practically the same that the preceding witness did, and that he did not notice any difference in his physical appearance and that he performed the same labor he did before.

There is no question from the evidence but what the claimant received the injury as complained of and under the circumstances as stated and while in the line of his duty. The extent of the disability, however, from all of the evidence, is a little hard to determine with exact certainty by this court.

The Attorney General in his brief denies that the claimant is entitled to recover under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and that the Workmen’s Compensation Act does not apply to employees of the Illinois State Penitentiary and cites North, Admr., v. Board of Trustees, University of Illinois, 201 App. 449, and Carver v. State of Illinois, 4 Court of Claims, 87.

It is true that the cóurt has held this under the facts as stated in those particular cases, but in the criminal insane department of said institution the risk is more hazardous than if dealing with the ordinary inmates in the other departments of the penitentiary.

While the State might not under the former holdings of this court be liable for injuries as in this case, still in the interest of social justice and equity, we believe the claimant should receive some compensation for the disability received.

We have decided under the evidence to allow him the sum of $3,500.00 and accordingly make an award for the same.


text:
    (Claimants awarded $3,300.00.)
    Alfred W. Bruhn, 774; Margaret E. Bruhn, 775; Caroline Bruhn, 776; Gladys Irene Bruhn, a Minor, by Alfred W. Bruhn, Her Next Friend, 777, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondents.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Governmental function — not liable for negligence of member of III.National Guard. The State in the use of its Militia exercises a governmental function and is not liable for the negligence of a member thereof.
    Social justice and equity — aviard may be made. While no legal.liability exists against the State for the negligence of á member of the Illinois State Militia, yet where the circumstances of the case warrant it, the court may on grounds of social justice and equity enter an award in favor of claimant.
    Barr & Barr, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

Each of the claimants above were injured in the same accident. The cases come before the court on separate declarations filed by each claimant, but in order to avoid duplications and to simplify procedure, the court has considered them together, and we will cover them in this one opinion.

From the declarations filed, it appears that ■ the claims grew out of an accident occurring September 1,1923, in Boone county, Illinois, when a truck being operated by a member of the Illinois National Guard collided with an automobile in which Alfred W. Bruhn, Margaret E. Bruhn, his wife, his mother, Caroline Bruhn, his daughter Gladys Irene Bruhn were riding’, the automobile being driven by the said Alfred W. Bruhn. It further appears that said claimants were proceeding in a westerly direction along a certain public highway, in Boone county, Illinois, known as “State Bond Issue Route No. 5,” when the State of Illinois, acting by and through Private McMahon, a member of the 33rd Tank Company, Illinois State Militia, in the command of Lieutenant B. L. Bamsey, operating a certain motor vehicle, known as a motor truck, on said public highway, and proceeding along said highway in an easterly direction in pursuance of orders and directions of proper officials of the Illinois State Militia and of the State of Illinois, carelessly and negligently drove said truck and improperly managed same and collided with claimant’s car. Claimant sets out damages to his car amounting to $800.00; and each claimant asks an award for personal damages and injuries as a result of said accident.

A demurrer to each declaration was filed by the Attorney General óf the State of Illinois, which, as a matter of law, is sustained.

A stipulation entered into between each of the claimants above named, by their attorneys and the State of Illinois, by its Attorney General, provides that the taking of evidence in above cases shall be consolidated in so far as the evidence taken applies to the several cases; that additional evidence other than'that heretofore taken on behalf of the several claimants herein in support of their claims, shall be taken before Everett C. Shaw, a notary public, at the office of Dr. Minor L. Hartman in Garden Prairie, Illinois, on October 16, 1924, commencing at 2:00 o’clock P. M. and continuing from time to time until completed, and when completed said evidence to be returned to the Secretary of State and ex-officio clerk of the Court of Claims, in a sealed envelope, bearing endorsement of Everett C. Shaw, notary public, and the title of the case, and reciting that it contains said evidence.

The claimants, Alfred W. Bruhn and Margaret E. Bruhn, appeared before this Court of Claims in person and testified, and the court examined the nature of the injuries sustained. It does not appear, however, that the infant child, Gladys Irene Bruhn, who was six months old at the time the accident occurred, sustained, any injuries which would justify the allowance of an award. In each of the other cases, however, we feel that as a matter of social justice and equity, the claimants should receive some compensation for the injuries sustained, and we accordingly award to Alfred W. Bruhn the sum of $1,450.00, which award includes damages done to the car he was driving; to Margaret E. Bruhn the sum of $1,-100.00, and to Caroline Bruhn the sum of $750.00.


text:
    (No. 781
    Claimant awarded $500.00.)
    Catherine Magill, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Respondeat superior — State not liable for torts of inmates of its institutions. The doctrine of Respondeat Superior is not applicable to the State, and it is not liable for the torts of an inmate of its institution.
    Social justice and equity — award- may he made. While the State is not liable for the tort of an inmate of its institution, an award may be made to claimant on the ground of social justice and equity.
    John J. Reeve, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

Catherine Magill, claimant, filed her declaration in this court for claim for personal injury committed by one of the insane inmates of the Jacksonville State Hospital on the 3rd day of August, 1922.

It appears from the contradicted evidence in this case the claimant, who was about 83 or 84 years of age, resided near the state institution; that a number of the inmates of said institution were working in a field nearby where she lived. One of these inmates slipped away from the guards, went over to the residence where the old lady was alone, attacked her, inflicting considerable injury about her eyes, face, throat and other parts of her body. The claimant made outcry and the insane man was soon captured and taken back.

The maltreatment she received at that time, of course, prostrated her, and she was taken in an ambulance to the Jacksonville State Hospital, where she received treatment for more than four weeks.

The doctor’s bill and all expenses were fully paid by the State, and she was kept in the hospital nearly two weeks longer, making in all six weeks when she was discharged as about recovered.

The bruised places and scars had about cleared up, but it was complained by her that her throat had never entirely gotten well. The evidence discloses further that she was always nervous, unable to do the house work as she had always done before that time for her son and his family, with whom she was living at the time.

After this she visited about amongst her sons and their families and apparently was in fair health, except that she was nervous.

About two years after the attack she died, but the cause of her death was not shown by the evidence to be a result of the injury so received.

The presumption is that she died of extreme old age. One of her sons testified that she was not able to work after the attack as she did before, but still he had never employed any help for the house, because his mother would not stand for his getting other assistance.

After her death, letters' of administration were issued on her estate to Owen Magill, who, as such administrator, asked the court for leave to substitute himself as claimant and continue the prosecution of this suit. Leave was given to so prosecute.

It seems from the evidence in this case that the old lady suffered to some extent during the two years, the remainder of her life, after such attack, but a woman of her age, we believe from our experience and observance, would not be capable of rendering much manual labor for any family or for herself.

Old people at that age ought to be taken care of by their family and not have to take care of the family themselves. If she were living today, it would be the opinion of the court that she ought to be entitled to about $1500.00 for the injury received, which would only compensate her for the indignities received at the time aside from the bruises and wounds inflicted by the maniac.

The present claimant is not prosecuting the suit to recover for loss of service to the next of kin of the deceased, as that would require a new suit to do so, and even if they were, we would not be inclined to award them anything for the loss of service from the death of their mother.

We have decided to allow the claimant the sum of $500.00, and hereby accordingly award to him the said sum.


text:
    (No. 785
    Claim denied.)
    Edwin O. Linden, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Bonus act — court is without jurisdiction. The court is without jurisdic- • tion to consider a claim of a soldier for compensation under the Bonus act.

      Same — Service Recognition Board. The Service Recognition Board has exclusive jurisdiction in the consideration of claim of soldier under the Bonus act.
    Lee W. Carter, for claimant.
    Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This id a claim for soldier’s compensation. The State, by its Attorney General, comes and files its statement denying the legal or equitable right of the claimant and alleges that this court is without jurisdiction, owing to the fact that the intention of the bonus act was to vest the service recognition board with exclusive jurisdiction and pass upon and finally dispose of all claims filed under that act.

It is the opinion of the court that this contention is correct.

Therefore, the claim is denied.


text:
    (No. 790
    Claimant awarded $2,000.00.)
    The Van Dorn Iron Works Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund may he awarded. Although there may be no legal liability against the State to refund the amount of a franchise tax paid in excess of the amount due the State, yet as a matter of social justice and equity an award may be made in favor of claimant for the excess tax paid.
    Dustin, McKeehan, Merrick, Arter & Stewart, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the refund of certain portions of franchise taxes paid to the Secretary of State of the State of lilinois by above named claimant, total amount paid in excess of amount due being $2000.00.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of social justice and equity, we award claimant the sum of $2,000.00.


text:
    (No. 791
    Claimant awarded $650.24.)
    Inland Iron Works Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — refund may be awarded. The court may award claimant the amount of the franchise tax erroneously paid, although no legal liability exists against the State, such award may be made on ground of social justice and equity.
    John T. Booz, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the refund of franchise taxes wrongfully paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, in the years 1921 and 1923, in the total sum of $650.24.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $650.24.


text:
    (No. 792
    Claim denied.)
    J. A. Eisele, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Non-liability of state — State not liable for negligence of its employees. The State is not liable for the negligence of its employees.
    J. E. Malone, Jr., for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; A. E. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes before the court on a declaration filed by J. A. Eisele, in which he alleges that on October 27,1922, while driving Ms Packard tónring car from the city of LaSalle, LaSalle county, Illinois, to Chicago, Cook county, Illinois, traveling upon the cement road known as Temporary Route 7, and at a point upon said State road about twelve miles east of the city of Morris, Grundy county, Illinois, said Packard touring car was damaged by collision with a large truck owned, controlled and used by the Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State of Illinois, in the maintenance and upkeep of State roads, and claimant alleges that accident occurred through the negligence and carelessness of the driver of said truck.

The State of Illinois, by the Attorney General, filed a demurrer, which, as a matter of law, is sustained.

From the testimony, which has been carefully examined, it appears that the driver of said Packard car, J. A. Eisele, was driving at the rate of 35 miles an hour; that it was a wet, raiiiy morning; that he attempted to pass the truck above mentioned, which truck was traveling at the.fate of about ten miles an hour; that when he saw he was unable to pass said truck, he turned to the right and applied his brakes and that it was impossible at that time to avoid a collision. We believe that the driver of the said Packard car was guilty of contributory negligence, disregarding weather' conditions, and traveling at a high rate of speed; hence the demurrer filed by the Attorney General is sustained.


text:
    (No. 794
    Claimant awarded $4,500.00.)
    John Gebhart, Administrator Estate of Henry Gebhart, Deceased, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Respondeat superior — the State is not liable for injuries sustained by its' employees. The State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees while in the discharge of their duty.
    Social justice and equity — award may be made. As an act of social justice and equity, and under the circumstances in the case, the court may recommend to the legislature an appropriation to claimant.
    Rolland M. Wagner, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, John Gebhardt, administrator of the estate of Henry Gebhardt, deceased, brings this suit to recover compensation for the death of said decedent, caused hy being gored by a vicious bull.

The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:

The decedent on the 16th day of August, 1923, while in the employ of the State of Illinois in the capacity of dairyman at the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Home located in Adams county, Illinois, and while in the discharge of his usual duties and without fault or blame on his part, was viciously attacked by a.bull belonging to the defendant, State, and gored to death.

The evidence discloses without refutation that the bull was never known to be ill or vicious before, but on the contrary the brute was perfectly docile and gentle, a fact which would excuse the deceased from the exercise of any other than ordinary care and prudence in going about such an animal. It had never been known to attack anybody, a fact that also as a legal proposition relieves the defendant from liability for damages, as the Supreme Court has often held in similar cases.

Decedent left him surviving no widow, but eight children survived him, six of whom, were under the ages of their majority, ranging from eleven to seventeen years old, who were, in a measure, dependent upon their father for support and education.

Mr. Johnson, the Assistant Attorney General, cites numerous authorities why the State is not liable in this case, all of which are in point and are decisive and are the law in this case, as we have repeatedly held, and we will not discuss the law laid down in the authorities so cited, still the court is always interested and pleased to have counsel in all cases when deemed proper, furnish the court with a brief of authorities.

However, this case is one that appeals to the sympathy of the court, and we have concluded, in the interest of social justice, equity and good conscience, to recommend, and do hereby recommend to the legislature, that it make an appropriation to claimant, John Gebhardt, administrator, of the estate of Henry Gebhardt, deceased, the sum of $4,500.00, which amount we hereby award.


text:
    (No. 798
    Claim denied.)
    The United States Corporation Bureau, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Publication notice — when State not liable for. Where publication notices are made by direction and authority of a State department compensation for same should be made out of the appropriation to that department.
    Wirt E. Humphrey, for claimant.
    Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a case brought to recover compensation for publication notices against delinquent corporations, asking for dissolution of said corporations, total amount of claim being $1004.75, and declaration alleges that the claimant, acting by authority and direction of Samuel E. Erickson, clerk of the superior court of Cook county, published said legal notices in the National Corporation Reporter in its editions dated April 7th, April 14th, April 21st, June 9th, June 12th, and June 23rd, copies of said legal notices being attached to and made part of the declaration.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is, as a matter of law, sustained. This claim should have been paid by the Attorney General from appropriations allotted to him during the period above set forth, and we do not feel that there are any grounds, either of equity or social justice, which warrant the allowance of this claim, hence the demurrer is sustained.


text:
    (No. 806
    Claimant awarded $4,066.44.)
    Vulcanite Roofing Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund may be made. While the tax erroneously paid may not be recovered, yet on grounds of social justice and equity, a refund may be awarded.
    Adams, Follansbee, Hawley & Shorey, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed by above claimant to recover portions ■ of franchise taxes erroneously paid by above named claimant to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois in the years 1921 and 1922,'total excess tax paid amounting do $4,066.44.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $4,066.44.


text:
    (Claim denied.)
    Frank Winters, 811; Bonnie Winters, 812; Frank Joseph Winters, Jr., 813, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Respondeat superior — when State not liable. Negligence of its employee. The State is not liable for the negligence of its employees.
    Geo. W. Dowell, for claimants.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court.

These cases will be treated together inasmuch as they refer to the same accident, and the same testimony is applicable to each. Claimants ask for damages sustained by each respectively, arising out of an accident, which occurred under the following circumstances: On March 22, 1924, Frank Winters, together with his wife, Bonnie Winters, and infant child, Frank Joseph Winters, Jr., were driving along a state highway about two miles north of the City of Carbondale, Jackson county, Illinois, in the night time of said date, when he, said Frank Winters, collided with a certain truck owned by the State of Illinois, which had been left standing without an attendant upon, along and crosswise said hard road; that by reason of said collision, the car in which they were driving was injured beyond repair, and each of claimants suffered severe injuries.

Demurrers, filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois are, as a matter of law, sustained.

It appears from the testimony that one Sykes, in the employ of the State of Illinois as highway patrolman from Carbondale to DuQuoin, was driving a State truck north of Carbondale along and upon the pavement upon a State highway leading north from Carbondale, and when Sykes had arrived about one mile north of Carbondale he attempted to turn the truck around, and while endeavoring to make the turn backed the truck so that the rear wheels left the pavement and mired down in the mud so that the truck by its own force could not get back upon the pavement. The truck was about at right angles with the pavement so that the front of the truck pointed westward and there was a distance of between four and four and one-half feet between the west edge of the slab and the front part of the truck. After working with the truck and endeavoring to extricate it about an hour, the patrolman went into Carbondale to procure lanterns, and returned with same and placed same on the truck about 7 o ’clock, one on the front bumper and one on the south side of the truck just in front of the rear wheel. We do not find any evidence of negligence on the part of any of the State employes in this instance, and had the driver of the Chevrolet above mentioned, the claimant, Frank Winters, been in the exercise of due care and caution, he could have avoided the accident. It is therefore the judgment of this court that these claims and the same are hereby rejected.


text:
    (No. 819
    Claimant awarded $887.83.)
    Ramapo Ajax Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund may he made. This case is controlled by the decision of the court in Vulcanite Roofing Qo. v. State, supra.

    Whitman & Miller, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinioii of the court:

This is a claim for the refund of certain portions of franchise taxes erroneously paid by above claimant to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, in the year 1922, total excess paid by above claimant amounting to $887.83.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of |887.83.


text:
    (No. 821
    Claimant awarded $2,950.00.)
    Ed. S. Smith, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Fees & salaries — when State liable. An employee of the State is entitled to receive the salary fixed by statute pertaining to his employment, and the State is liable therefor.
    Watson & Warford, for claimant.
    Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant was appointed in due course as metal mine inspector and entered upon the duties of his position the 16th day of February, 1922* and has continued as such inspector from the time of his appointment until the filing of his declaration.

The plaintiff alleges that his salary was fixed by the laws of the State of Illinois, Section .95, Chapter 93 of the Smith - Hurd, Illinois Statute, that the amount so fixed was $3,600.00 a year, that part of the time he was paid $250.00 per month and part of the time $125.00 per month.

It appears from the record further, that the difference between the amount paid him and the amount allowed by the statute up to July 1,1924, amounts to the sum of $2,950.00.

It does not appear from the declaration that the claimant asked for any further relief.

The Attorney General comes and files his demurrer.

It is the opinion of this court after examining all the records that this claimant entered upon his duties under the statute fixing his salary at $3,600.00 per year for the term of his appointment and,therefore in equity and social justice, as well as law, is entitled to recover for the services rendered.

It is therefore recommended by the court that claimant be allowed the sum of $2,950.00.


text:
    (No. 823
    Claimant awarded $2,500.00.)
    James Wade, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Governmental function — when State not liable. The State in the construction of its public highways exercises a governmental function and is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees in its construction.
    Social justice and equity — award may be made.' While the State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees while in the discharge of their duty, an award may be made to such employee, and compensation fixed by the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
    Capps & Weaver, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, James Wade, who was in the employ of the. State of Illinois on August 8, A. D. 1922, near Florence, in Pike county, Illinois, as a stationary engineer and laborer under the Division of Highways, Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State of Illinois, brings his suit for damages for injuries received by him while in the performance of his duty. The testimony in this case shows that on the date above mentioned, James Wade was employed by the proper officials of the State or of the highway department to fire a steam boiler which produced steam for the operation of the drills used in preparing to blast the rock from the bluff which was used for the construction of the road, or in order to get the rocks away from the proposed course of the new ■ road. It was a part of his duty to attend to the line of iron pipe called the steam line, which ran from the boiler to the place where the drills were used, and while so doing his usual work, together with other workmen, was directed to repair the steam line, which was leaking. He, with the other workmen proceeded to carry out this order, and while working on the steam line, which was supported on cross pieces, his foot slipped on some loose rocks or gravel and he put forth his hand to steady himself, and his hand struck some object with sufficient force to produce a small wound. He immediately washed the wound and gave it little thought, but later it was apparent that the wound had become infected. He was ordered to proceed to Dr. Goodin for treatment. He took this treatment, but the wound did not yield to the treatment, and he was ordered by his foreman to go to Dr. E. 0. Smith, who was then a practising physician and surgeon at Pittsfield, the county seat- town, about eleven miles from where he .was working. His condition became so bad that he had to submit to an operation, and finally lost the first or index finger, and has also lost the use of the second and third fingers, so that at present there is very little movement of any of the fingers of the hand except a slight movement of the thumb and little finger.

The Attorney General of the State of Illinois filed a demurrer, which, as a matter of law, is sustained.

It appears that claimant is a man of very little property and of no education, and up to the time of the injury had made his living by manual labor; that he has two minor children, who live with him, and that his wife died shortly before the injury occurred. The claimant has been paid some money by the State of Illinois, to the extent of about $500.00, and his physician’s bills have been paid in so far as he knows. While the State is not legally liable for the payment of an award, the court, as a matter of social justice and equity, awards said claimant the amount which he would be entitled to receive under the Workmen’s Compensation Act for the injury sustained, or the sum of $2,500.00.


text:
    (No. 824
    Claimant awarded $1,000.00.)
    Michael W. Wright, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Respondeat superior — State not liable for injuries sustained by its employees in discharging their duty. The State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees while in the performance of their duty.
    Social justice and equity — award may be made to injured employee. While there may be no legal liability against the State for injuries sustained by its employees in the discharge of their duty, yet in the interest of social justice and equity an award may be made for injuries sustained:
    John G. Friedmeyer, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, Michael W. Wright, brings this suit for the reason of damages received by him while operating the elevator in the State Capitol building.

The facts in the case alleged in his declaration are substantially as follows:

On the 11th day of October, 1921, he was directed by the custodian of the capítol building, in charge of the Secretary of State, to operate a certain elevator of the State while the inspectors were present to inspect the same. The elevator was being tested by operating the same. The elevator was loaded with pig iron, increasing the weights along from time to time to test its strength. The claimant was then operating it for such testing. He had made fifteen trips without any accident, and ordered to make another under high speed, as was usual to- do in making such tests; and while the elevator was running at great speed, in accordance with the instruction of his superior officer, on reaching the third floor the clutches caught in the mechanism of the elevator, and suddenly stopped with a terrific jar, by means of which claimant was thrown with great force upon the bars of pig iron which lay on the floor of the elevator car. He was rendered unconscious and hurt about the abdomen, left side, left hip, and hurt internally.

The claimant was under the care and treatment of Dr. Patton for four or five months. He continued in his regular employment till April, 1922, and continued earning his regular salary of $100.00 per month. He then obtained leave of absence for six months from May 1, 1922, during which time he received no pay from the State, and went back to work November 21,1922, at same salary, was off again on leave of absence from May, 1923, to November, 1924, during which time he received no pay. He was injured about the head and spine and his nervous condition shattered and complications developed which have become chronic.

He claims to have paid out large sums of money to Drs. Tripp, Patton, Bennett, Imlay and other persons.

Mr. Millspaugh testifies that claimant was off duty and off payroll for eight months and twenty-five days. Dr. Trapp testified that claimant had some enlargement of the heart, hardening of the arteries, digestive organs inflammation of the gall bladder, adhesions of the bowels, adhesion of the appendix, chronic appendicitis, swelling in right groin, which could not alone have been due to old age; and that his disabilities are permanent. His bill is $82.00.

The evidence is not disputed, except that Mr. Scott, superintendent of buildings, testified he had told claimant that when the Otis people came to test the elevator for him to step off and let the Otis people put on their own man. This Wright denies under oath. This is the only controverted point. Inasmuch as Scott is not corroborated upon that point and Wright denies it, it must be solved in Wright’s favor, there being no other facts to corroborate the evidence of Scott and the witnesses being of equal credibility.

The State, through its attorney, cites authorities to the effect that the State is not liable from a legal standpoint. This is true, but in the interest of social justice, we have decided to make an award for claimant. The evidence as a whole presents a somewhat complicated case, and it is a little difficult to arrive at a just conclusion. There is no doubt in the minds of the court that the claimant is in a very bad physical condition, aiid from the evidence we must conclude it was due to the injuries, both external and internal, he received at the time of the accident that caused the condition. He testifies that he is practically totally disabled. The evidence shows that he is still in the employ of the State at his usual salary, that had existed prior to and up to the time he was injured. In the interest of social justice and equity, we have decided to award the claimant the sum of $1,000.00.


text:
    (No. 826
    Claimant awarded. $2,100.00.)
    Saline Gas Coal Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — tax erroneously paid may 6e refunded. This case is similar to that of Vulcanite Roofing Go. v. State, supra, and the decision of the court in that case governs this claim.
    Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward J. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the recovery of portions of franchise taxes erroneously paid by above named claimant to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois in the years 1921 and 1922, total excess tax paid amounting to $2,100.00.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $2,100.00.


text:
    (No. 830
    Claimant awarded $582.70 with interest.)
    State Bank of Chicago, Executor of the Estate of Sherman T. Cooper, Deceased, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Inheritance tax — refund or renunciation of will by widow. Where an inheritance tax has been assessed and paid, under Sec. 25, of Inheritance Tax Law, and afterwards the widow files her renunciation of the provisions of the will made for her, and by subsequent proceedings in the county court there was an overpayment of the tax by reason of, such renunciation, claimant. is entitled to a refund of the amount overpaid.
    Gardner & Carton, for claimant.
    Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The State Bank of Chicago, as executor of the estate of Sherman C. Cooper, deceased, brings this suit to recover on refund an amount alleged to be due deceased under the provisions of Section 25 of the inheritance laws of Illinois.

After the appraisement, fixing the amount inheritance tax to be paid under order of the county judge and the payment of the same, and after the renunciation of the provisions of. the wil-1, making certain provisions for the widow, and by subsequent findings and order of the county court, there became due to claimant the sum of $582.70, to which it is entitled to refund.

It seems that this is what Assistant Attorney General Eagleton designates Claim No. 2, and the matter has been taken up by him for the State and gone into very carefully with claimant, and the parties have mutually agreed that the sum of $582.70 should be refunded to claimant. This the Attorney General, by his said assistant, Eagleton, reports in his answer, and by making oral explanation in open court. The evidence supports the claim, and by mutual agreement as aforesaid, the court hereby awards claimant the sum of $582.70, with 3% interest from October 14, 1923.


text:
    (No. 830a
    Claimant awarded $10,992.86 with interest.)
    State Bank of Chicago, Executor of the Estate of Sherman T. Cooper, Deceased, Claimant, vs. State of Ilinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 14, 1924.

    Inhbbitance tax — refund or renunciation of will by widow. Where an inheritance tax has been assessed and paid', under See. 25, of Inheritance Tax Law, and afterwards the widow files her renunciation of the provisions of the will made for her, and by subsequent proceedings in the county court there was an overpayment of the tax by reason of such renunciation, claimant is entitled to a refund of the amount overpaid.
    Gardner & Carton, for claimant.
    Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, State Bank of Chicago, as executor of Sherman T. Cooper, deceased, presents claim for the refund of inheritance in the sum of $10,992.86.

The claimant in its contention for such allowance, presents its case based upon the following facts, viz: That Sherman T. Cooper, a resident of Chicago, Cook county, Illinois, died in Chicago, April 4, 1923, leaving a last will and testament, which was duly admitted to probate in said county, and claimant was appointed executor and as such, qualified and is now acting.

October 4, 1923, an order entered by the county judge on the appraisement, fixed the cash value of the property, as shown by a lengthy itemized statement shown in the judge’s order, a copy of which is filed herewith, and found the amount of the inheritance tax due thereon to be $74,176.73 which the executor paid to the county treasurer October 4, 1923.

On December 3d, claimant appealed from said order to the county court of said county, and on a hearing the county court entered an order revising the said prior order of the county judge, as shown by copy of the order filed in this case, upon which an order was made fixing the total inheritance tax to be paid to the State of $75,736.65, which less 5%, equaled $71,948.87, which was paid October 4, 1923, as aforesaid.

On February 23,1924, Jennie V. Cooper, the widow of said deceased Sherman T. Cooper, filed in the Probate Court of Cook county her renunciation under his will, and by reason, of such renunciation, the property which the parties interested in the estate, were entitled to receive, and the amount of tax payable thereon, were materially changed.

That by reason thereof, the claimant on August 13, 1924, filed in the county court of Cook county, its petition for a reappraisement and for a revision of the inheritance tax, and said court on the same date entered an order making such reappraisement and revising such tax; and fixed the total of such tax at $64,164.22, and this sum less 5% the statutory discount, made a net amount so due of $60,956.01. The claimant has filed certified copies of all orders and other proceedings of the court and judge and such other evidence as are necessary to prove its claim. The Attorney General states that he has carefully gone through the pleadings, evidence and all files, and finds the statement of claimant to be true and consents to the allowance of the claim as proven and claimed.

By reason of the premises, there has been an overpayment of the inheritance taxes in said estate, as shown by the order of the said county court August 13, 1924, and the claimant is entitled to a refund of tax as follows:

Tax actually paid October 4, 1923, (being the sum $75,735.65 as ■ fixed by order of court December 3, 1923, less 5% discount
allowed by law), $71,948.87..............................’.. $71,948.87
Net tax, actually due (being the sum of $64,164.22, as fixed by order of the county court August 13, 1923, less 5% discount, allowed by law)........................................... 60,956.01
Over-payment ................................................. $10,992.86

This court finds the claim correctly set forth and fully sustained by the evidence. According an award is made to claimant in the sum of $10,992.86, with interest at 3% from October 4, 1923.


text:
    (No. 832
    Claimant awarded $3,500.00.)
    Abram S. Wilson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Governmental function — State not liable for injuries sustained by its employees. State highways. The State in constructing its highways exercises a governmental function and is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees, while in the performance of their duty.
    Social justice and equity — award may be made. On grounds of social justice and equity an award may be made to an employee injured in the discharge of his duty, although no legal liability exists against the State.
    J. H. Searing and Chas. E. Hamilton, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes before the court on a declaration filed by Abram S. Wilson to recover damages sustained by him while in the employ of the State of Illinois, in the capacity of inspector in the construction of a Portland Cement Concrete pavement, being built by the State of Illinois, known as Section 11, S. D. Route 2, and his declaration alleges that in that capacity he traveled to and from his work by means of a motorcycle, which was owned by the State of Illinois; that on September 28, 1922, he was returning from his work on said road to his residence in Carbondale, and that he was coming toward Carbondale over the completed portion of the pavement on Section 11, S. B. Route 2, which had been opened to traffic; that while traveling over said highway on the evening aforesaid at an hour between six and seven o’clock P. M., and while traveling in the regular traveled track on said paved highway at the rate of about twenty miles per hour, in turning aside to pass an approaching car, the motorcycle which complainant was riding struck a pile of sand on the pavement, which caused the motorcycle to skid across the pavement, striking a bag of calcium chloride, both of which materials were for use in constructing said pavement, thence striking the concrete curb along the edge of the pavement; that he was thrown from the motorcycle in such a manner that he struck a fruit tree with his head, the impact being so severe that his skull was crushed over the right temple and that he was rendered unconscious; that as a result of the accident he was confined in the hospital three weeks; and that he was so incapacitated by said accident that he was unable to resume his duties as engineer with the State of Illinois, Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways, between the dates of September 28, 1922, and April 30, 1923; that he did return to his duties as engineer with said Division of Highways at the district office at Carbondale, Illinois, but that the hearing in his right ear was destroyed and the right side of his face was partially paralyzed as a result of said accident.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is, as a matter of law, sustained.

There is no liability on the part of the State in this case, but on the grounds of social justice and equity, we award the claimant the amount he would be entitled to receive under the Workmen/s Compensation Law in force in the State of Illinois, or the sum of $3,500.00.


text:
    (No. 833
    Claimant awarded $975.00.)
    Herbert Deaton, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Military service — when claimant entitled to award. When claimant a member of the Illinois National Guard is injured while in the performance of his duty, he is entitled to an award, under Sec. 142, of Chap. 129, Smith-Hurd’s Rev. St. 1927.
    Herbert Deaton, for claimant.
    Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes before the court on declaration filed by Herbert Deaton, setting forth that on February 15, 1924, about 9:30 P. M., Headquarters Detachment, 2nd Squadron, 106th Cavalry, arrived in Springfield, Illinois, from Williamson county, Illinois, after a period of riot duty; that claimant was assisting in unloading equipment from a truck at the State Arsenal at that time, and while so engaged the truck driver suddenly backed up the truck; that he was unable to escape owing to a large crowd leaving the arsenal at the conclusion of an evangelistic service, and his right leg was caught between the truck and the stone step of the arsenal entrance, resulting in a compound fracture of the right leg; that he was removed to St. John’s Hospital in Springfield, where he remained for eight weeks before being discharged; that on July 4,1924, while convalescent, he was riding a horse, the property of Major Herbert W. Styles, commanding the 2nd Squadron, 160th Cavalry; upon dismounting from this horse at his home, claimant stepped in a rut and again fractured his right leg and was taken to the Springfield Hospital, Springfield, Illinois, where he was confined for six weeks; that these injuries were not due to any carelessness on claimant’s part.

The Attorney General filed his- statement in the above entitled cause as follows: The claimant was injured February 15, 1924, and received a second injury July 4, 1924, at both times being on duty as a member of the Illinois National Guard; claimant’s injuries were attended to and he-has been examined on. several occasions by surgeons acting -under orders of the military authorities of the State. The claimant herein is in poor financial circumstances, and for that reason the case is being submitted to this court rather informally, in order to expedite its disposition and to minimize the expenses to the claimant in presenting his claim. It appears from the facts.submitted to the Attorney General by the Adjutant General that since the first injury to the claimant, the Adjutant General has given the case close observation, and as a result thereof we are in a position to fully and satisfactorily lay the facts before the court in this way. We submit statements in regard to the case signed by the following parties: Major Herbert W. Styles, Private Richard W. Newell, Dr. E. S. Spindel, Sergeant George W. Boggs and Dr. H. H. Tuttle, relating to the accident and nature and extent of claimant’s injuries. We also submit herewith photo static copy of physical examination of the claimant made by Colonel George C. Amerson,'surgeon general of the Illinois National Guard, on March 1, 1924, and also photostatic copy of the surgeon general’s final examination of the claimant on December 4, 1924. These examinations by the surgeon general were made under orders issued by the Adjutant General. We believe the facts thus presented are sufficient to enable the court to determine the nature and extent of the claimant’s injuries. Special attention of the court is called to the report of the surgeon general, Amerson, on his examination made December 4,1924, wherein he states: It is my opinion that the above has a permanent disability of 15 per cent.

We wish to further suggest that in view of the claimant’s second injury, occurring before he had fully recovered from his first injury, that some consideration should be given to the possibility and probability of the original injury being to a certain extent responsible for the second injury. The Attorney General desires to call to the attention of the court information furnished him by the Adjutant General to the effect that since claimant sustained his first injury on February 15,1924, there has been paid to him by order of the Adjutant General a sum of $106 on salary. The Adjutant General also caused to be paid to Dr. H. H. Tuttle for medical and surgical attendance $214, and to St. John’s Hospital, of Springfield, for hospital services rendered claimant the sum of $150.75. The Adjutant General has recommended to the Attorney General “that this case be expedited in every way possible for an early adjustment on an equitable basis.”

The court finds that, this case arises under the military code of the State, and that the claimant is entitled to an award. The.court therefore awards the claimant the sum of $975.00.


text:
    (No. 837
    Claimant awarded $7,065.48.)
    Cadet Knitting Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund may he made. This case is similar to that of Vulcanite Roofing Co. v. State, supra, and the decision of the court in that case governs this claim.
    Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar, E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for refund of certain portions of franchise taxes erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois by above named claimant, in the years 1920 and 1921, total excess tax paid amounting to $7065.48.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the- State of Illinois is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of social justice and equity, we award above named claimant the sum of $7065.48.


text:
    (No. 838
    Claimant awarded $3,780.75.)
    Cadet Knitting Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund will he made. This case is governed by the decision of the court in the case of Vulcanite Roofing Co. v. State, supra.

    Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the refund of franchise taxes erroneously paid by the claimant to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, the excess due claimant being $3780.75.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $3780.75.


text:
    (No. 839
    Claimant awarded $5,914.76.)
    Piggly Wiggly Stores Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund will he made. This case is governed by the decision of the court in Vulcanite Roofing Co. v. State, supra.

    Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the refund of franchise taxes erroneously paid to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, in the years 1920,-1921 and 1922, by the above named claimant, total excess paid amounting to $5914.76.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois is, as a matter of law, sustained.

' We award claimant the sum of $5914.76, on the grounds of equity and social justice.


text:
    (No. 842
    Claim denied.)
    Alonzo Echols, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Governmental function — State highways. State not liable for negligence of its employees. The State in owning, operating and constructing its highways exercises a governmental function, and is not liable for the negligence of its employees, agents or officers.

      Sub-contractor — State not liable for acts of. A sub-contractor in constructing a State highway cannot thrust liability upon the State, or render it liable for his acts or negligence while performing his contract with the State.
    C. S. Miller, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes before the court on a declaration filed by claimant, Alonzo Echols, in which he sets forth that on August 31, A. D. 1921, claimant was the owner of certain lands, located in Pulaski county, Illinois, lying adjacent and south of the Village of Ullin in said county, and which lands were of great value to claimant, and there was adjacent to, running through and dividing said lands a certain public highway which was commonly called the Ullin and Caledonia road, then and there leading from the Village of Ullin in a southeastwardly direction to the cities and towns in the county of Pulaski, which said road was then and there open and generally traveled by the publicthat on said date, the State of Illinois was in the process of constructing a public highway in a northerly and southerly direction through and south from the Village of Ullin through the county of Pulaski, which road was known as State Bond Issue Road Number Two, and which road was being constructed along the easterly side of claimant’s said property at the point aforesaid, where claimant’s said property was crossed by the said,Ullin and Caledonia road; that the State of Illinois was employing in and about the construction of said road the Robinson Bros. Construction Company and other agents and servants of the State of Illinois, and it became and was the duty of the State to so . construct said road as not to injure, damage, obstruct or cut the said Caledonia and Ullin road or to interfere with the travel thereon by claimant or the general public; that said State Bond Issue Number Two Boad, was improperly constructed at said point so as to totally cut and destroy the said public highway so that claimant and others leaving his land are totally unable to travel across and along said public highway to the east or south, and are wholly unable to reach said lands from said directions; that said State of Illinois, through its employees, agents and servants went upon his said lands without any right or authority of law and trespassed thereon, piling vast quantities of earth and other waste material thereupon, and dug large holes and excavations on his said land, and in other ways injured said land and destroyed the value thereof; and claimant says that he is injured and has sustained damages to the amount of One Thousand Dollars.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is sustained as a matter of law.

The testimony and evidence submitted in this case is quite voluminous. It is unnecessary to cite authorities on the familiar principle that the State, in owning, operating, controlling its highways, exercises a governmental function and is not legally liable for the acts of its officers, agents and employes. That being so well settled, it requires no argument on the proposition that one not even remotely under the jurisdiction of the State, as in this case a sub-contractor, should not be permitted to thrust any liability upon the State by its unlawful acts. To hold otherwise and permit such a class by their acts to bind the State to liability for damages, when it is well settled that even the officers, agents and employes of the State cannot do so, would establish a most dangerous precedent. Upon examination of the testimony submitted, we find that there was practically no damage done to the land of claimant that is injurious to same, and there is no element of equity or social justice which leads us to make an award in this case; hence, the demurrer filed by the Attorney General is sustained.