text:
    (No. 845
    Claim denied.)
    Malcolm B. Sterrett, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

      Contract — State not liable for services of a voluntary worker. The State is not liable for the services performed by claimant who was a voluntary ' worker, although the services were performed for a department of the State.
    Malcolm B. Sterrett, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, Malcolm B. Sterrett, claims that he .was an assistant to Attorney General Brundage in 1921 and rendered services for the State in capacity of Assistant Attorney General in 1921 and up to October, 1922, for which he claims $3625.00. That the Attorney General accepted such services and paid him $250.00 on his said demand. He files no bill of ' particulars, as required under the rules of this court. He does not state whether or not it has ever been presented to any other department, etc., for payment.

The Attorney General causes and files his plea and answer, denying that the State is indebted to claimant; and states that prior to July, 1921, the Attorney General did have some conversation with claimant relative to employing him as Assistant Attorney General. That about 1st of July, 1921, the Attorney General told claimant he would not be able to employ him as one of his assistants, as he had no funds with which to pay him, and thereupon then and there claimant expressed a willingness to come into the office as “a volunteer worker, ’ ’ making use of the facilities of the office in his own behalf, and so remained till about October, 1922. Attorney • General Brundage, as stated by Attorney General Carlstrom, in his pleas and answers, denies' that he employed claimant, or called on him to render any special services or any services for which he was not compensated. But that Attorney .General Brundage did pay claimant $250.00 for “special services ’ ’ and owes him no more.

The statements of Attorney General Brundage and his deputy make it very clear to the court that there was no contract by and between the Attorney General and the claimant that would warrant a recovery against the State.

The case is accordingly dismissed.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

license: Public Domain

text:
    (No. 848
    Claimant awarded $1,333.28.)
    Walter F. Rohm, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Fees & salaries — when claimant entitled to award. A State employee is entitled to the salary or compensation fixed by statute.
    Augerstein & Schneider, 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:

It appears that the claimant was duly appointed secretary of the Industrial Commission of the State of Illinois on the 1st day of May, 1923, and that he has been fulfilling the duties of that position up to the 1st day of July, 1923, at the salary of $5000.00 per annum, that since the 1st day of July, 1923; he has been paid for his services at the rate of $4000.00 per annum and that there is now due the claimant up to and in-eluding October 31, 1924, the sum of $1333.28.

It is the opinion of this court from the records that the claimant performed his duty and should receive compensation as fixed by statute.

Therefore, it is considered by the court that the claimant be allowed the sum of $1,333.28, balance due him on his salary.


text:
    (No. 851
    Claimant awarded $1,800.00.)
    James G. Broadhurst, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Governmental function — when State not liable. The State in conducting the Illinois State Prisons exercises a governmental function, and is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees therein while in the performanee of their duty.
    Fquity and (,ood conscience — award may be made. The court may award compensation to an injured employee of the State, as a matter of equity and good conscience.
    John L. Walker, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank B. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This claimant was employed as a guard at the Illinois New State’s Prison on the 10th of November, 1924. About ten o ’clock of that day he was in the yard of said institution performing his usual ordered and customary ' duties having charge of inmates who were doing construction work; that an inmate by the name of Robert Johnson beat and assaulted the plaintiff on the head causing dangerous and painful injury. It appears to the court that the plaintiff was injured through this assault receiving a laceration over the top of the head about four inches long and another laceration on the side of the head three inches long and that his back was wrenched and bruised; that by the result of such injuries the claimant was disabled for a considerable period and that he will have a scar on the top of his head and that his face will be marred and scarred for life and that he has a ringing in his head, is dizzy and unable to properly perform his usual and customary duties.

As it has been held by this court on many prior cases, there is no legal liability against the State of Illinois but as a matter of equity and good conscience it is considered that employes of the State engaged in these hazardous occupations should receive at least the same consideration in case of injury as if they were employed by a private corporation or individual.

Therefore it is considered by the court that the claimant be allowed the sum of $1,800.00.


author: Mr. Justice Phillips

text:
    (No. 858
    Claimant awarded $300.00.)
    The National Bank of Carmi, Illinois, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    There being no dispute as to the law and facts in this case the court enters an award to claimant.
    Roy E. Pearce, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

Declaration and pleas filed, and evidence read and heard in open court. Oral argument of counsel representing all parties also made in open court and the court awards claimant, The National Bank of Carmi, Illinois, the sum of $300.00.


text:
    (No. 859
    Claimant awarded 82,500.00.)
    Lawrence Clark, a minor by Muriel Klasen as next friend, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Student at state institution — when award may be made for injuries sustained by. A student at the State School for the Deaf at Jacksonville, was required to work at a planer the blades of which were not properly protected, and by reason of the unsafe condition of the machine, sustains an injury by having his fingers cut off: Held, He is entitled to an award for the injuries sustained.
    Carl Choisser, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim brought by a young man who was a student in a school for the deaf operated in the city of Jacksonville, county of Morgan in the State of Illinois. ■ It appears that this school was equipped and under the jurisdiction and control of the State of Illinois and directly under the control and supervision of the Department of Public Welfare of the State of Illinois; that prior to Feb. 7, 1922, it appears that this claimant was required to work on a certain piece of machinery used in the Manual Training Department of the said school, known as a planer, and the claimant further alleges that it was the duty of the defendant to use reasonable care to keep the planer in reasonable and safe condition, it being-further alleged that the planer was permitted to become in an unsafe and dangerous condition; that because of the fact that said planer did not have safety blades in it and was not protected, the claimant, on Feb. 7, 1922, while attempting to make a bevelled edge on a panel by using the planer for the benefit of the school as aforesaid and while using due care and- caution for his own safety, his index and middle fingers were caught in the said planer and were amputated. Therefore the claimant brings his claim for $5,000.00.

The Attorney General comes and admits the facts as stated in claimant’s bill'of complaint, are substantially correct, the Attorney General stating that the claim was forwarded to the Department of Public Welfare where the authorities upon investigation found the claim to be equitable and just to the extent and for the amount submitted to this court.

This is a deplorable accident and more pathetic because of the infirmities of the claimant and consequently commands a careful" and equitable consideration. It is however the opinion of the cdurt that the amount asked is larger than can consistently be allowed in view of the precedents in other similar cases. It is the opinion of the court however that the claimant should be allowed the sum of $2,500.00. It is therefore recommended that said amount of $2,500.00 be allowed.


text:
    (No. 860
    Claim denied.)
    Ella M. Cochran, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

      Services — when award will not he made for. The court will look with disfavor upon claims filed when several sessions of the legislature intervene between the time the services are alleged to have been rendered and the filing of the claim therefor. ' .
    Rules of court — must he complied with. Claimant must comply with the rules of court in the-filing of his claim against the State.
    Ella M. Cochran, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Floyd E. Britton and J. W. Gullett, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

Ella M. Cochran being the plaintiff in this suit files this claim in the sum of $150.00, which she claims to be due her for services rendered by her in the early part of the year 1921 and at the request of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois for work done in writing in cases wherein the Attorney General filed petitions for the dissolution of certain corporations of the State of Illinois.

It seems from the évidence in this case that the claimant was Deputy County Clerk of Sangamon county and as such undoubtedly was being paid a regular salary or compensation regularly for her services.

As such Deputy County Clerk she claims that this work was .for extra night services done by her in connection with the aforesaid cases and .at the request of the Attorney General.

She has made out and filed in this court a claim sworn to by her against the Attorney General of the State of Illinois for such services. It does not appear anywhere that she has ever filed a declaration or made out a claim and sworn to the same against the State of Illinois. She states however, that she made application to the Attorney General in 1921 to pay this claim, which he claims he could not do as he had exhausted his appropriations that year, made for such purposes.

These services were rendered in May, 1921, and this claim • is not filed until January 12, 1925, until after the expiration of the term of the Attorney General who secured her services ; as aforesaid the Attorney General Edward J. Brundage in response to a letter written by her, admits that the claim is just and that he agreed to pay the same, but did not do it for the reason of lack of funds.

He further states that these services were done in compliance with appropriations made for the purpose for which it was claimed to be made in 1919.

It appears from this then, that there were three sessions of the Legislature to-wit: 1919, 1921 and 1923 when appropriations might have been made to pay for all of such services.

It is evident that she was being paid her regular salary for services as Deputy County Clerk during the time that she was doing this work.

She has let this claim drag throughout the entire term of' Attorney General Brundage and after the expiration of his term of office has filed this claim for allowance.

We do not look upon such claims with favor. There is no declaration filed nor are the rules complied with in bringing such claims in any particular.

For the reasons above stated, the above claim will be disallowed and the case dismissed.


text:
    (No. 865
    Claimant awarded $3,000.00.)
    Archie L. Johnson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Student at state institution — when award may be made for injuries sustained by. A student at Northern Illinois State Teachers College, under the direction of the college authorities sustains injuries in the operation of dangerous machinery in the manual art department, and by reason of such injuries he is permanently disfigured: Held. He is entitled to an award as an- act of social justice and equity.
    John M. Buckley, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon and Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the .court:

This is a claim brought to recover for injury sustained by claimant while a student regularly enrolled and paying tuition in the Northern Illinois State Teachers’ College in the City of DeKalb, and State of Illinois.

It appears while the claimant was working in the manual art department of said college, operating a saw which was part of the equipment of said arts department, his left hand was thrown in contact "with the saw, by reason of which he suffered the amputation of the thumb, the index, finger and the middle finger 'of his left hand and other lacerations and injuries to said hand.

It appears to the court that this is a case that appeals more strongly than the principle -of equity and social justice. The claimant appeared in person in court, a clean cut, intelligent young man, and offered for consideration of the court his maimed hand, which will not alone retard his possible success in life, but will also disfigure him.

He suffered a great deal of páin and other physical inconvenience, and it appears to the court that allowance should be made.

It is therefore considered by the court that the claimant was injured while giving due care for his own safety, was under the direction of the college authorities, was paying for his education, in fact the State was engaged in business and received the money of the claimant for the training he sought.

As it is often held by this court, there is no legal liability, however in accordance with the rule of equity and social justice, it is recommended by this court that claimant be allowed $3,000.00.


text:
    (No. 867
    Claimant awarded $500.00.)
    F. H. Noble & Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when refund may he made. There being no dispute as to the law and facts in this case, the court enters an award in favor of claimant.
    Robert F. Kolb, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action for a refund of franchise tax which it is alleged was paid by claimant in error to the Secretary of State for the years 1923 and 1924. It appears to the court from the record that there should be a refund as claimed and the Attorney General coming in files his stipulation admitting that claimant is in equity and good conscience entitled to a refund in the sum of $500.00.

Therefore it is recommended by this court that claimant be allowed the sum of $500.00.


author: Mr. Justice Leech

text:
    (No. 875
    Claimant awarded $1,500.00.)
    Thomas Stack, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Respondeat superior — State not liable. The State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees while in the performance of their duty.
    Social justice and equity — award may he made. An award .may be made to an employee of the State who is injured while in the discharge of his duty, as a matter of social justice and equity.
    Barr & Barr, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This claim comes before the court on a declaration filed by Thomas Stack, claimant, in which he alleges that on or about February 1, 1923, and for one year prior thereto he was employed by the Department of Public Works and Buildings under the supervision and direction of the Division of Highways; that on said date, while engaged In the discharge of his duties in trimming the trees which-over-hung the public highway at and in the vicinity of Sag, Illinois, and while on a ladder ten feet from the ground and while sawing a branch from a tree, said branch broke before same was half way severed and fell and while so falling, said branch struck the ladder upon which claimant was standing, knocking the same from under him and as a consequence of which he was ■ thrown upon the ground and as a result of which, claimant’s leg was fractured; that he has spent a large sum of money in treating said injuries, and that his leg is permanently disabled.

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 $1,500.00.


text:
    (No. 877
    Claimant awarded $3,355.00.)
    Powers-Thompson Construction Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

      Contract — when State liable. Where a contract has been entered into between the State and claimant for the construction of a portion-of its hard road system, and claimant enters upon the performance of its contract ae- ■ cording to the terms thereof, and afterwards the State, through its author-, ized department, changes the location of the highway as specified in the contract, and by reason thereof claimant is compelled to rearrange its plans and its plant and equipment forced to remain idle for a considerable period of time causing loss to claimant: Held. Claimant entitled to an award for the damage .sustained by the change of the contract by the State.
    Barr & Barr, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit brought by Powers-Thompson Construction Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, against the defendant, State of Illinois, to recover damages caused by''a change made by defendant in a contract with claimant to construct certain hard roads, and causing claimant’s forces and machinery to be idle a long time.

The facts in the case are as follows: That on September 7,1921, the said claimant entered into a contract with defendant, State, wherein the claimant, amongst other things, was to construct a concrete highway eighteen feet wide and do the necessary grading therefor along a portion of highway known as Section three (3) of State Bond Issue, Route No. 4, in the county of Will, State of Illinois, and to begin at Station No. 1343, a point near S. W. corner of S. W. Sec. 36, Town 33 N., R. 10, E. 3rd P. M., and extending in a northeasterly direction for a distance of 36,000 feet to what is known as Station 1703, for a consideration of One Hundred Fifty-five Thousand One Hundred Eight and 96/100 Dollars ($155,108.96), all in manner as set forth in the agreement of said date.

Said contract required, among other things, the claimant to commence the work not later than 15 days after date of notice to begin work and to complete same before December 1,1922.

On August 1, 1921, claimant was duly notified by State to begin work within 15 days thereafter, which it did. The claimant. constructed a large plant and a large amount of equipment at the Village of Elwood, that after claimant had completed the rough grading around two right-angle turns, as designated in contract, and laid its industrial tracks along the same, the State, acting through the Department of Pub-lie Works and Buildings, decided to change the location of said highway so as to eliminate said^riglvt angles by extending the road through what would have been the hypotenuse of a right triangle formed by the roadway.

Such change necessitated the taking of private property by the State, which it was unable to acquire till October, 1922; and that as a result claimant was compelled to re-arrange its plans so as to lay the southern portion first, instead of last as contemplated, and it was not able to begin laying concrete till June, 1922,' causing a loss of time from April 1st to June 24th, during which time the plant and equipment were forced thereby to lie idle during said period; and for various other periods it lay idle, for which claimant claimed damages, and the State was then and there so notified.

Thereupon the Department of Public Works and Buildings, through its superintendent and other proper officers, reached an agreement in settlement of the damages caused as aforesaid, in the sum of $3,355.00. No objection is interposed by the Attorney General as to the settlement and the reasonableness of the same; but the Division of Highways could not pay same and recommended that same be filed with this court.

There is no dispute as to the facts- and evidence in the case. The evidence establishes the claimant’s right of action, and the court is of the opinion that the claim is reasonable and should be paid. The court accordingly awards claimant the sum of $3,355.00.


text:
    (No. 879
    Claimant awarded $434.11.)
    Philomena L. Greulich, Executrix of the Estate of F. A. H. Greulich, Deceased, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Inheritance tax — property not taxable. Claimant entitled to refund. When an inheritance tax has been assessed against an estate, and the tax paid and the property of the estate is not subject to taxation, claimant is entitled to a refund of the tax paid.
    Fergus L. Anderson, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant files his claim for refund of inheritance taxes erroneously paid. -

It was paid on property not taxable under the laws of Illinois. The Attorney General has examined the files and the evidence and consents to an award of the amount claimed. On examination of the evidence the court hereby makes an award to claimant, Philomena L. Greulich, executor the estate of F. A. H. Greulich, deceased, in the sum of $434.11.


text:
    (No. 880
    Claimant awarded $322.00.)
    Dr. M. L. Hartman, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

      Services — when State liable. When medical services have been rendered to a person for whose injury an award has been made by the State, claimant is entitled to an award for the medical services rendered.
    F. A. Oakley, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for services performed by claimant in caring for A. W. Bruhn, Margaret Bruhn, Caroline Bruhn, Ralph Bruhn and Gladys Bruhn, said persons having been injured by an army truck while in actual service and being used by the Illinois State Militia, near Belvidere, Illinois, and an award having been made to them, in which award, no allowance was made for the services of said physician.

Statement filed by Attorney General of the State of Illinois recites that this claim was forwarded to the adjutant general’s office, where it ivas duly investigated, and that same ivas found to be just and equitable for amount claimed.

Wherefore, Ave aAvard claimant the sum of $322.00, being the amount claimed for professional services rendered to said persons.


text:
    (No. 883
    Claimant awarded $744.18.)
    Albert Rice, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Inheritance tax — when claimant entitled to refund. Sec. 25. Where an inheritance tax has been fixed and paid under Sec. 25, Inheritance Tax Law, and afterwards under the provisions of the will claimant becomes entitled to the whole of the estate under the terms of the will, and the county court, upon proper proceedings, enters an order finding claimant entitled to a refund of the tax paid: Held. Claimant entitled to an award for the amount of the tax paid.
    Peffers & Wing, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

Albert Rice, claimant, presents this claim for refund of inheritance taxes under and by virtue of Sec. 25 of Inheritanee Tax laws of Illinois. Mary M. Higgins of this State died testate January 1, 1923, and her will was. duly admitted to probate, the estate administered, settled and executors discharged. The-inheritance taxes were fixed and paid under protest.''

Claimant and Clara Horton were made joint beneficiaries of the residue of the property of decedent, after payment of certain other legacies, and, at death of either, the other to get entire amount as provided by will. Clara Horton died and claimant became entitled to her part so that he is sole, claimant.

Clara Horton was a stranger by blood to deceased — not related to her. The tax was assessed at the highest possible rate under said Sec. 25 in accordance with the provisions in the will.

At the death of said Clara Horton the. claimant became entitled to a refund of the inheritance tax under Sec. 25.

The county court subsequently to the entry of original order fixing the tax, made another order finding complainant entitled to' a refund of the amount so paid. Certified copies of orders of the court and of administration are in evidence and the claim proven by competent evidence and no defense.

It is found by the court that claimant, Albert Rice, is entitled to such refund and the court accordingly awards him the sum of $744.18.


text:
    (No. 884
    Claimant awarded $2,679.01.)
    Samuel P. Parmly, Jr. and Clara S. Parmly, Executors of Samuel P. Parmly, Deceased, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Inheritance tax — when claimant entitled to refund under Bee. 25. There being no dispute as to the law and facts in this case, the court' enters an award in favor of claimant for the amount of their claim.
    Frank Wentworth Swett, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimants, Samuel P. Parmly, Jr., and Clara S. Parmly, executors of the estate of Samuel P. Parmly, deceased, claim a refund in the sum of $2,679.01 of inheritance taxes, paid under the provisions of Section 25, Inheritance Tax laws of Illinois.

On proper proceedings in the county, it is found that said sum was found to be due to claimants on refund. Copies of order of the court are on file.

The Attorney General in writing consents to an award in the sum claimed. The court on examination of all the evidence and on consent of - the Attorney General finds the claimants are entitled to a refund of the said sum and the court accordingly awards the claimants the sum of $2,679.01.


text:
    (No. 886
    Claimant awarded $1,139.74 with interest.)
    Samuel J. Mixter, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Inheritance tax — when claimant entitled to refund. Where it is shown upon a proper proceeding for the re-assessment of the tax that the claimant is entitled to a refund, the court will enter an award in favor of claimant.
    Thomas S. Ward, for claimant.
    • Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

. This case is an application by claimant, Samuel J. Mixter, for refund of inheritance taxes $1,141.45, the ampunt he claims to be due him on re-assessment and by a finding of the county court on such re-assessment, with interest from April 24, 1912, at the rate of 3% per annum.

It is evident to the court that there is now due claimant the sum of $1139.74 with 3% per annum from April 24, 1912, and to the allowance of this sum with interest the Attorney General files his written consent. The court accordingly awards the claimant the sum of $1,139.74 with interest at 3% from April 24, 1912.


text:
    (No. 887
    Claimant awarded $433.02 with interest.)
    John Connaghan, et al., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    , Inheritance tax — when claimant entitled to refund. Bee. 25. There being no dispute as to the law and facts in the case the court enters an award in favor of claimant.
    Martindale & Martindale, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank E. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court: '

John Connaghan et al, claimants, file this claim for refund of inheritance taxes to be due them under the provisions of Section 25, Illinois Inheritance Tax laws.

It appears that claimant paid the sum of $443.39 with interest $32.87 equal $476.26.

Later, on proper petition, the court re-assessed said tax in sum of $32.00 and the interest thereon, to-wit: $2.40, equal $34.40 due as inheritance tax, showing* the sum of $441.86 less 2% retained by the county treasurer of Adams county, being* the sum of $8.84, leaving a balance due for refund to claimants the sum of $433.02, together with interest thereon at 3% per annum from February 1, 1924, to this date, which is ordered paid to claimants, John Connaghan, Daniel Connaghan, James. Connaghan, Mary Connaghan, Eose Gmeiner, Mary Warrell, Margaret Eobinson and Bridget Flannagan or their legal representatives.


text:
    (No. 889
    Claimant awarded $1,681.65 with interest.)
    The Foreman Trust & Savings Bank, Trustee of the Last Will and Testament of George Andrin, Deceased, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Inheritance tax — when claimant entitled to refund under Sec. 25. When an inheritance tax has been assessed and paid, under Sec. 25, Inheritance Tax Law, and the estate is afterwards re-assessed upon proper proceedings, and the court finds claimant entitled to a refund, a refund will he awarded.
    Victor C. Winnen, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The Foreman Trust and Savings Bank, formerly named Foreman Bros. Banking Co., trustee, brings his suit to recover a refund of inheritance tax under the provisions of Section 25 of the Illinois Inheritance Tax laws.

The claimant was duly appointed executor of the last will and codicil of George Andrin, deceased, as shown by probate court records of Cook county, Illinois. The tax was legally entered and paid under the conditions of the estate as it then existed. On proper proceedings thereafter, the inheritance on re-assessment by .the court, showed by the record evidence to be $1681.65 due on refund to claimant, with interest from 21st day of July, 1920, per annum from date.

The Attorney General files his answer admitting the correctness of claim and consents to the allowance in writing to said demand and the amount so found due.

It is accordingly found by the court that the claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, with interest as aforesaid. The court accordingly awards the claimant the sum of $1,681.65 with interest from July 1,1920.


text:
    (No. 891
    Claimant awarded $3,266.85.)
    John M. Smyth, et al., Executors of the Last Will and Testament of Thomas M. Smyth, Deceased, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Inheritance tax — renunciation liy widow. When refund made under Sec. 25. ' Where an inheritance tax has been assessed and paid under Sec. 25, Inheritance Tax Law, and the widow afterwards renounces the provisions of the will made for her, and it appears upon appeal that by reason of such renunciation the amount of the tax was in excess of the amount due the State: Held. Claimant entitled to an award for the amount of the excess found to be due claimant by the county court.
    McCulloch & McCulloch, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimants, John M. Smyth, Mary A. Smyth Nelson and Frank G. Nelson and Jane F. Smyth Patera, individually and as executors of the last will and testament of Thomas M. Smyth, deceased, claim a refund of inheritance tax under and by virtue of Section 25 of the Inheritance Tax laws of Illinois.

Decedent died testate June 16, 1917, and John M. Smyth, Mary A. Smyth Nelson and Frank G. Nelson were appointed executors under deceased’s last will and testament. The inheritance tax is $6,526.72. By reason of the renunciation by the widow, of the provisions of the will, the said sum is too large, but it was paid by executors under protest. The case was appealed to the county court of Cook county, and upon hearing in said court on the 12th day of January, 1925, an order was entered by the court in the sum of $2715.39, and that sum was erroneously paid under Section 25 aforesaid.

A certified copy of the county court’s findings and order are on file in evidence in this case. The Attorney General files his written consent to allowance of same as prayed. The claim is duly proven by the record evidence. It is therefore ordered and adjudged £hat claimants individually, and the executors aforesaid have an award of $2,715.39 with interest at the rate of 3 % per annum from the 9th day of August. A. D. 1918.


text:
    (No. 892
    Claimant awarded $495.00.)
    Watson H. Allen, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Non-liability of state — when State not liable. III. & Mich. Canal. The State is not liable for damages to land and crops caused by an overflow of • water from the Illinois and Michigan Canal.
    Social justice and equity — axoard may be made. Although the State is not legally liable for damages to lands and crops of claimant caused by overflow of water from the 111. & Mich. Canal, an award may be made to claimant on ground of social justice and equity.
    Lee O’Neil Browne, 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 is a claim for damage sustained by claimant to his land and crops by reason of the overflow from waters of the Illinois' and Michigan canal on August 8, 1924, damages to crops amounting to $495.00.

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 $495.00.


text:
    (No. 893
    Claimant awarded $1,442.50.)
    Robert J. Calhan and Robert Calhan, Petitioners, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Non-liability of state — State not liable for overflow of water, causing damage, from Illinois & Mich. Canal. This case is similar to that of Allen v. State, supra, and the decision of the court there announced governs this claim.
    Lee O’Neil Browne, 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 claim comes before the court on a declaration filed by above named claimants, for damages by them sustained by reason of the overflow of the Illinois and Michigan canal, by the breaking of the south bank of said canal and the lock at Marseilles, in said canal, not being opened up in time to prevent the flood waters from accumulating and backing up, so that the lands of claimants was overflowed and their crops destroyed; that this flood occurred some time in the first part of the month of August, 1924, the reasonable value of the crop destroyed being $1442.50.

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 claimant the sum of $1442.50.


text:
    (No. 894
    Claimant awarded $3,500.00.)
    County of LaSalle, State of Illinois, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Non-liability of state — State not liable for overflow of water, causing damage, from Illinois & Mich. Canal. The decision of the court in the case of Allen v. State, supra, governs this claim.
    Lee O ’Neil Browne, 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 is a claim for damages sustained by claimant, on its premises located a short distance west of the city of Ottawa, and known as the “LaSalle County Poor Farm”, or “Home”, by reason of the overflow of a canal owned by the State of Illinois; said damage having occurred on or about September 7, 1924, and as a result of which the crops raised on said farm were destroyed, the reasonable value of said crops being $3,500.00.

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 $3,500.00, on the grounds of equity and social justice.


text:
    (No. 898
    Claimant awarded $2,857.80 with interest.)
    Raye Diamond and Oscar G. Foreman, Trustees of the Last Will and Testament of Harris Wolf, Deceased, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Inheritance tax — when claimant entitled to refund. Sec. 25. Where certain contingencies named in a will happen and. afterward the estate is re-assessed by reason thereof, in proper proceedings, and the tax reduced, claimant is entitled to a refund of the excess tax paid.
    Harry C. Diamond, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimants, Raye Diamond and Oscar G. Foreman, trustee of the last will and testament of Harris Wolf, deceased, bring this suit for the refund of inheritance taxes under Section 25 of the Inheritance Tax Laws of the State of Illinois.

The decedent died testate, September 21, 1911, domiciled in the city of Chicago, in Cook county, Illinois, and claimants were duly appointed and qualified as executors of said estate.

Their inheritance being assessed and entered by the . County Judge of said county, same was paid by executors to the amount of $8459.89.

Certain contingencies named in the will happened later and thereby necessitated a re-assessment, and on proper proceedings in the county court of said county of Cook, the estates were re-assessed, and by reason of such re-assessments the estate became liable to refund to claimants, the sum of $2857.80 with interest at the rate of 3% from 28th day of March, 1914, as shown by certified copy of the record of the proceedings in said court.

There is no contest in behalf of the State, and the Attorney General in his reply admits the correctness of the claim.

The evidence supports the claimant’s claim and it is ordered that claimants be awarded the sum of $2,857.80 with interest thereon at the rate of 3% per annum from 28th day of March, 1914.


text:
    (No. 900
    Claimant awarded $375.00.)
    R. V. DeLay, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Military service — when State not liable. Although there may be no legal liability against the State for injuries sustained by a member of the Illinois National Guard, while in discharge of his duty, yet an award may be entered in his favor as a matter of equity.’
    Haven & Hyle, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This ds a claim for injuries sustained by claimant while in the discharge of military duties for the State of Illinois, and declaration sets forth that, on October 29, 1922, while on duty in Co. I, 130th Infantry with his company at the Chicago & Alton Railroad shops at Bloomington, Illinois, in the evening of said date, it being dark, he was walking along the track of the said railroad company, in the exercise of due care and caution, to inspect relief, and that'while so crossing said track, he was struck by a handcar and knocked to the ground, and thereby became greatly bruised, hurt and wounded and divers bones in his body were broken, and since said time he has been unable to attend to his affairs and occupation.

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

The amount of the claim $375.00, we believe to be equitable and just, and we accordingly award claimant the sum of $375.00.


text:
    (No. 901
    Claimant awarded $398.75 with interest.)
    Robert O. Butz, Theodore C. Butz and Herbert R. Butz, Executors of the Last Will of Otto C. Butz, Deceased, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Inheritance tax — when claimant entitled to refund. Sec. 25. Where an inheritance tax has been assessed and paid, under Sec. 25, Inheritance Tax Law, and afterwards, upon proper proceedings, the estate was reassessed by the county court, and the court finds that claimants are entitled to a refund, an award will be made for the excess tax paid.
    Butz, Von Ammon & Marx, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the,opinion of the court:

The claimants, Robert O- Butz et al., brings this suit to procure from the State, a refund of inheritance tax in the sum of $398.74 with 3% interest per annum from October 28, 1920, under Section 25 of the Inheritance Tax Laws of Illinois.

Otto Butz died testate in Cook county, Illinois, and claimants were appointed by will executors therein, and afterwards duly qualified as executors.

The inheritance taxes were fixed and order made by county judge of said county; and on the 28th day of October, 1920, paid the taxes then shown by order'of the court to be due to-wit: $19,306.08, less 5% discount allowed by statute in such case made and provided making a net tax so paid $1.8,-340.78.

Application was made in due time, to the county court of said county and by order of the county court the estate was reassessed; that upon such- reassessment the executors, as shown by order of said county court, the claimants became and are entitled to a refund under Section 25 of said act in the sum of $398.74. Certified copies of will, letters, assessments and orders of the county court are filed and considered herein in evidence and same prove the claimant’s demand, to which the Attorney General makes no objection, but consents in writing to the allowance of said sum.

The court accordingly awards claimants, executors of said estate, the sum of $398.74 with 3% interest per annum thereon from October 28, 1920, to this date.


text:
    (No. 902
    Claimant awarded $171.43.)
    The Texas Company, a Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Franchise tax — when claimant entitled to refund. There being no dispute as to the facts and law in this case the court enters an award in favor of claimant.
    T. J. Sullivan, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for the refund of franchise tax paid into the office of the Secretary of State erroneously and it appearing by stipulation filed by the Attorney General that the claimant is entitled to a refund in the sum of $171.43, and therefor by such consent and from the examination of the records this court recommends an allowance of the sum of $171.43 to the claimant.


text:
    (No. 905
    Claimant awarded $250.00.)
    Frank Brawner, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Respondeat superior — State not liable. While the State is not liable for the torts or negligence of its employees, an award may be made to claimant for damages caused by the negligence of an employee of the State.
    L. H. Vogel, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for damages sustained to the automobile of claimant, by reason of collision with an automobile owned by the State of Illinois, in the Highway Department of said State and being driven by one Fred Little, an employee and servant of the said Highway Department and of the State of Illinois, said automobile so driven by Fred Little being driven recklessly and in violation of an ordinance of the city of Springfield; damages to claimant’s car amounting to $250.

Statement filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, recites that said claim has been investigated by the Department of Public Works and Buildings and said department reported that it was equitable and just to the extent and for the amount as submitted to this court on behalf of claimant.

We accordingly award claimant the sum of $250.00, on the grounds of social justice and equity.


text:
    (No. 906
    Claimant awarded $28.00.)
    G. H. Schanbacher and H. A. Schanbacher, Partners, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

      Services — when State liable. Where services have been performed for the State at the request, of its authorized department, and the work is approved and accepted by the State, claimant is entitled to an award for the services performed.
    Barber and Barber, 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 claimants, G. H. Schanbacher and Son, claim that they did services for the State at its request, to-wit: Painting the canvas pedestals of the statues of Tates and Palmer on the Capitol grounds.

The work and material are shown to be worth $28.00. The work was approved and accepted by the defendant through its supervising architect of the Department of Public Works and Buildings.

No available funds could be found with which to pay the bill and the claim being filed in this court the Attorney General consents in writing, to its allowance.

The court awards the claimant the sum of $28.00.


text:
    (No. 907
    Claimant awarded $2,500.00.)
    Leslie Owens, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Respondeat superior — no liability. Social justice and equity. Although the State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees in the discharge of their duty, yet an award may be made to such employee on the ground of social justice and equity.
    W. St. John Wines, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit brought by Leslie Owens, claimaiit, for personal injuries received while in employment of the State and while in discharge of his duties as game warden of the State. The facts in the case are about as follows:

On October 31, 1924, claimant as fish and game warden of Illinois was ordered by W. J. Stratton, chief game and fish warden, to go to a cabin boat on the Illinois river near Glasto rd in Peoria county to investigate a violation of the fish and game laws of Illinois and in pursuance of said orders went to said boat and to the lodging place of one Mike Vegetta, whom he informed as to his business, stating who he, claimant was.

Then and there the said Vegetta made an assault upon claimant with a knife, and claimant was compelled to shoot him twice before he checked the attack.

Claimant threw up his arm to ward off the attack of Vegetta with the knife and shot himself through the left forearm; and a desperate struggle ensued and claimant shot a second time so that he discontinued the struggle, and was taken into custody, and claimant was forced to seek medical aid at once, at the hospital at Peoria for a good while and then removed to the Presbyterian Hospital at Chicago where his arm was operated upon again' and treated for a bad arm and wrist, all of which services cost him $500.00.

The court ordered that claimant be brought before the court for oral and physical examination. Mr. Owens and Mr. Stratton both came before the court and gave oral testimony to the above effect. They both state that claimant has practically lost use of left arm; and on demonstration it is shown to the court that he has little use of the arm. Mr. Stratton confirms all this in his oral evidence before the court. It is evident to the court that claimant, at time he received the injury, was in line of duty, in the employment of the State, acted in necessary self defense and accidentally without fault on his part, wounded himself. The Attorney General was present in court at the time of taking this evidence, and makes no objection to allowance of claim, although a demurrer is filed. Upon such hearing the court hereby awards claimant the sum of $2,500.00.


text:
    (No. 908
    Claimant awarded $2,500.00.)
    Mary Hasbrouch, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Respondeat superior — social justice and equity. The State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees while in the discharge of their duty, but on the ground of social justice and equity an award may be made to such employee.
    Frank O. Hanson, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a-case brought on account of injuries sustained while she was regularly employed as a civil service nurse in the Children’s Nursery at the Illinois Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Orphans Home; that during her employment and while in the course of employment she slipped upon an icy walk, fell and injured her hip, breaking the hip bone; that since said accident she has suffered intense pain and is still severely and permanently incapacitated. It further appears that the claimant was a valuable and faithful servant of the State and that she is without means of support, other than the charity of her friends and her community.

It is the opinion of this court that in equity and good conscience an allowance should be had in this case as it is our belief that a reasonable protection should be given by the State to those of her servants who were injured in the line of duty. It is therefore recommended that claimant be allowed the sum of $2,500.00.


text:
    (No. 910
    Claimant awarded $5,861.41.)
    Lennox-Haldeman Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

      Contract — when State liable. Where extra material has been furnished and extra work performed by claimant under a contract between it and the State, and such material and work has been accepted by the State through its authorized department, the State is liable for such extra work performed and extra material furnished.
    Edward J. Smejkal, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, Lennox-Haldeman Company, a corporation, incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, under and by the terms of a certain contract made by and between it and . the defendant, State, a copy of which is incorporated in the declaration. It alleges that it entered into a' certain written contract with the State of Illinois through the Department of Public Works and Buildings, Cornelius E. Miller, director, to provide all the materials and to perform the work shown on the ceilings, metal lath and plastering, for the main building and Orthopedic buildings of the Eesearch and Educational Hospitals, South Wood, West Polk and South Lincoln Streets, Chicago, Illinois, prepared by Eichard E. Schmidt and Hugh M. Garden under the direction of the Division of Architecture and Engineering of the Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State of Illinois, Edgar Martin, supervising-architect, and to do every thing required by the general conditions of the contract, the specifications and drawings, etc., as shown in Exhibit “A” attached to the declaration. Article 3 of the contract showed that the owner was to pay contractor for the performance of the contract $103,000.00 subject to additions and deductions as provided in the general conditions of the contract.

Article 18 provided for plaster patching etc., etc., the'work to he done under the supervising architect and hi's employes; and was to be paid therefor the said contract price, “$103,-000.00” plus any amount earned by it for extra work ordered and approved by the supervising architect and in addition was to be paid for patching plaster damaged by wokmen of other contracts when ordered by the supervising architect or his employes an amount equal to 15% of the amount expended by it for labor and material necessarily employed and furnished by it in so doing.'

The claimant further alleges that at the direction of the supervising architect it furnished labor and materials and did plaster patching within the provisions of the contract as per bills rendered to the supervising architect on May 1,1924 and at various other times from time to time. It earned $103,-000.00 under original contract price and furnished extras as shown and admitted by the Attorney General, amounting in all to $115,658.35; that it has been paid a total of $108,796.94, leaving a balance due claimant of $6,861.41 as shown by its Exhibit “B” attached to declaration.

A claim for the balance was submitted to the Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State; but no final action was ever taken thereon by said department. The Department of Public Works and Buildings through its proper officers and the Attorney General are agreed that the said balance is due and payable to complainant as claimed by it less a credit of $1000.00 for certain work not yet finished. The Attorney has thoroughly investigated the matter and consents in writing to an allowance to claimant in the sum of $5861.41. From the evidence and consent of the Attorney General, the court finds for the claimant, and awards it the sum of of Public Works and Buildings through its proper officers $5,861.41.


text:
    (No. 911
    Claimant awarded $542.77.)
    Indiana Bridge Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

      Services — when State liadle. The State is liable for services rendered and material furnished in the erection of its Armory building for the Illinois National Guard.
    Sampson and Giffin, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed to recover for services rendered in connection with the erection of an Armory building for the Illinois National Guard for additional materials, etc., amounting to $542.77 and appearing that the acting supervising architect expresses the opinion' that the claimant is entitled to the award claimed and the Attorney General acting upon the opinion of the said architect consents to the award.

Therefore, it is considered by the court that the claimant be allowed the sum of $542.77.


text:
    (No. 912
    Claimant awarded $500.00.)
    Nicholas M. Whitfield, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Military service — when claimant entitled to award. The court reviews the evidence in this case, and enters an award in favor of claimant.
    Charles McBrian, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim brought on account of injuries sustained while on duty as a private of the first class in Troop F of the 106th Cavalry of the Illinois National Guard. It appears that said claimant while in the course of his duty, with due care and caution for his own safety while leading a horse from the stable, was kicked by a horse led by another Private, breaking the leg of claimant about six inches above the ankle, totally disabling the claimant for about five months. The claimant alleges damages in the sum of $900.00. The defendant the State of Illinois comes and makes no denial of the cause of the accident or the extent of the injury claimed and leaving the matter of allowance to the discretion of this court.

The claimant appeared in open court and was examined by members of this court as to the cause and the extent of the injury and the court finds that the claimant was injured as alleged and was disabled for a considerable length of time, and after taking the matter under advisement, this court recommends that the claimant be allowed the sum of $500.00.


text:
    (No. 913
    Claimant awarded $2,500.00.)
    Jerry F. Condon, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Military service — claimant entitled to award. Equity and social justice. The court reviews the evidence in this case, and no objection being made by the State, enters an award in favor claimant on the ground of equity and social justice.
    Donovan, Bray & Gray, 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 is a claim to recover damages for injuries sustained by claimant while in the service of the State of Illinois, in the discharge of military duty. Declaration avers that in the month of August, 1923, he accompanied the Illinois State Militia, with the 129th Illinois Infantry, for military duty and service at Camp Grant, Illinois; that on the night of August 30th, 1923, he was the Provost Sergeant of his company at said Camp Grant, \yhile in the performance of his military duties as such Provost Sergeant and while making the rounds of the camp of said company, and while in the exercise of ordinary care and caution for his own safety, he necessarily and unavoidably came in contact with a tent rope which, owing to the extreme darkness, he was unable to see and because of such contact he sustained a. fall which resulted in severe painful and permanent injuries, i. e., the fracture of the fibula and tibia bones of his leg; that'the accident occurred about 3:30 A. M., on the morning of September 1st, on which day his company was about to break camp; that he was taken to a hospital at Eockford, where he received medical care and attention and was later removed to his home at Pontiac, Illinois, and there also was under the care of a physician.

No demurrer is filed by the Attorney General, he having filed written assent to allowance of an award.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $2,500.00.


text:
    (No. 914
    Claimant awarded $13,975.43.)
    Schnepp & Barnes, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

      Services — when State liable. Where work has been done on behalf of the State, and is accepted by an authorized department of the State, an award will be made in favor of claimant.
    Schnepp & Barnes, for claimant.
    Oscar B. Carlstrom, Attorney General; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed to recover for printing, done on behalf of the State of Illinois, and it appearing from the statement of H. L. Williamson, Superintendent, Division of Printing, Department of Public Works and Buildings, and from the statement filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, the claim is just and meritorious and should be allowed.

We award claimant the amount asked for in said declaration, to-wit: Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-five and 43/100 Dollars ($13,975.43).


text:
    (No. 915
    Claimant awarded $229.35.)
    Schmidt Construction Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

      Contract — when State liadle. The decision of the court announced in the case of Schnepp & Barnes v. State, supra, governs this claim.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed by the Schmidt Construction Company. It appears from letters introduced in this ease and from statement made, that the Schmidt Construction Company are contractors of street pavements; that said company paved 19th and 20th Albany, Marshall Blvd., wherein the Illinois Industrial Home for the Blind, a State Institution, own property; that all work has been completed and accepted by the authorized agents of the State of Illinois and that the amount of the claim is $229.35.

The Attorney General, in behalf of the State, submits herewith a letter from C. H. Jenkins, Director of Public Welfare, in which the said Department feels that this is a just claim and should be allowed. The Attorney General therefore consents to an award in favor of the claimant, the Schmidt Construction Company in the sum of $229.35.

We therefore award the claimant the sum of $229.35.


text:
    (No. 916
    Claimant awarded $235.00.)
    Dr. S. F. Henry, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

      Services — at card may de made for medical services. Where medical services have been performed by an employee of the State who is injured in the course of his employment, an award may be made for such services.
    Parker & Bauer, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for medical services and surgical aid given to D. L. McGregor who was on the 18th day of August, 1924, employed by the State of Illinois in the Department of Public Works and Buildings. It appears that while said laborer was employed in the service of the State he received injuries and required the medical attention given.

There is no contention but that the services were performed and that the claim was reasonable and was based upon the rule of usual and customary charges for such services.. Therefore it is considered by the court that said claimant be allowed the sum of $253.00.


text:
    (No. 917
    Claimant awarded $222.50.)
    St. Anthony’s Hospital, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

      Services — award may 6e made. The decision of the court announced in the case of Henry v. State, supra, governs this claim.
    Parker & Bauer, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for hospital service furnished for one D. L. McGregor with the knowledge and consent of the State of lilinois through its proper officers; that the said patient was injured while in active service in the employ of the State of Illinois in the Department of Public Works and Buildings. It appears to the court that the Chief Highway Engineer examined the claim which is made in the sum of $222.50 and finds that the same is just and reasonable.

Therefore it is considered by the court that claimant be allowed the said sum of $222.50.


text:
    (No. 918
    Claimant awarded $85.54.)
    Frank Lutz, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

    Respondeat superior — when award may he made. There being no objection to this claim by the State, the court enters an award in favor of claimant.
    W. S. Jewel, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, Frank Lutz, a resident of Fulton county, State of Illinois, files claim for money expended by bim for the repairs upon a certain Cadillac automobile, the damage to which was occasioned by accident in manner following, according to allegations of claimant. The claimant alleges that while driving the said car on one of the hard surface roads in the State of Illinois, commonly known as the Peoria-Springfield road and driving in the direction of Springfield, Illinois, on said hard road, the claimant met one Charles Wheymer an employe of the State of Illinois driving a State truck, property of the State of Illinois and driving in a northerly direction. Claimant was driving in a southerly direction and was driving on the right side of the road, that the said Charles Wheymer driving said truck as aforesaid was at a point almost adjacent to the claimant and when the two machines were about to pass something happened to the -State truck which turned directly towards claimant striking the left side of the car, tearing off both the front and rear fenders on the left side of said car and otherwise damaging said machine. The driver of said State truck explained to claimant that the accident was the result of the trouble of tire and wheel of said auto truck which resulted in his being unable to control the truck. Claimant further alleges that his claim and damages amount to $85.54.

It appears that there is no objections made as to the amount of claim or defense as to the cause of the accident. Therefore this court recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of $85.54.


text:
    (No. 920
    Claimant awarded $2,500.00.)
    W. E. Crosiar, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 1, 1925.

      Contract — when State liable. The State is liable for work performed and material furnished on its State building.
    C. R. Miller, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action brought to recover for work performed on certain State buildings and materials furnished. It appears that the Department of Public Works and Buildings carefully examined the claim and have consented to its payment. The amount that is agreed upon as being due by both the claimant and the Department of Public Works and Buildings is $2,500.00, and it further appears that the Attorney General consents to an award in that amount.

Therefore this court recommends that the claim be allowed in the sum ,of $2,500.00.


text:
    (No. 903
    Claimant awarded $4,273.20.)
    Edward O’Callaghan and Henry O’Callaghan, Partners, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 26, 1925.

      Contract — when State liable. Where a contract has been made between claimant and the State for certain work, and the contract is performed by claimant, according to its term, and the contract price is paid, but during the progress of the work the State through its authorized agent orders certain specific work to be performed not stipulated in the contract and such additional work is performed and material furnished for same, claimant is entitled to compensation for such additional material furnished and work performed.
    Sims, Welch, Godman & Stransky, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimants, Edward O’Callaghan and Henry O’Callaghan, partners, doing business under firm name and style of O ’Callaghan Brothers, claim $7,192.30 as disclosed by the statement of their claim, and as shown by the evidence.

The claimants are plumbers and contractors, and as such, on to-wit: the 20th day of November, A. D. 1922, entered into a contract with the State of Illinois by its proper officers to do certain work, to-wit: Plumbing for a building shown as the Research and Educational Hospital of the State of Illinois, in Chicago, Illinois, under a contract of $145,600.00. The contract was completed and said contract price paid. However during the progress of the work, the State by its said duly authorized agents ordered other certain specific work performed in addition to that stipulated in the contract, and materials also to be furnished and added by claimants which they did as directed, and for which they charge the State the sum of $7,192.30. This bill was presented to the State’s building-department and upon an investigation and analysis of same by the proper officers of said department, they admitted the correctness of the claim, less $2,919.10, and agreed that the State should pay them the sum of $4,273.20.

The Attorney General has investigated the matter also and consents to allowance of said last named sum. From the weight of the evidence in the case it seems that claimants are entitled to said sum last aforesaid. The court accordingly awards the claimants the sum of $4,273.20.


text:
    (No. 827
    Claimant awarded $119.70 with interest.)
    Carlotta S. Signor and R. Lemuel Blount, Trustee, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent

      Opinion filed September 16, 1925.

    Inheritance tax — when claimant entitled to refund. Seo. 25. Where a tax has been assessed against a succession, and paid, and afterwards upon proper proceedings in the county court, it appears that certain contingencies upon which the original assessment of the tax was made, had not occurred, and the estate was reassessed and the tax fixed upon the re-assessment; Held. Claimant entitled to a refund of the difference between the amount of the tax paid under the .original order of the court and the amount found due upon the re-assessment-of the tax.
    Downer McCord, for claimant.
    Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General, George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

R. Lemuel Blount, trustee of the estate of I^ate Ward Bensley, deceased on the 26th day of July, 1916, paid to the treasurer of Cook county, the sum of $217.90 in full of inheritance taxes levied and assessed against the succession occuring by virtue of the death of Kate Ward Bensley, deceased.

On the 23d day of June, 1923, in the County Court of Cook county, Illinois, in the matter of inheritance tax appraisement in said estate of Kate Ward Bensley, deceased, it was ordered adjudged and decreed that inasmuch as certain contingencies upon which the original inheritance taxes were levied and assessed, not having occurred, the said estate was entitled to re-assessment of said inheritance taxes under Sec. 25, Chapter 120, in the Revenue act of the State of Illinois, and it was therefore ordered that said taxes be re-assessed in accordance with a certain schedule set out in the order, a copy of which is presented" in evidence, making the total amount of the assessment $79.40.

On January 17, 1917, the said R. Lemuel Blount was duly appointed trustee of said estate and duly qualified, in the case of Blount executor v. Christianson et al. Carlotta S. Signor was a niece of the said decedent, Kate Ward Bensley, and a legatee under her will and the entire original assessment of inheritance tax was assessed against her legacy, which assessment was paid by the executor and trustee, ancf under- the re-assessment of the inheritance tax, as ordered by the County Cqurt there is a refund due to the said Carlotta S. Signor amounting to $119.70 with interest thereon at the rate of 3% per annum from the 26th day of July, 1916.

The Attorney General consents in writing to an award as claimed. . The evidence sustains the claim, and the court accordingly awards said Carlotta S. .Signor and R. Lemuel Blount, trustee, the sum of $119.70 together with interest thereon from the 26th day of July, 1916, at the rate of 3% per annum until paid.


author: Mr. Justice Thomas

text:
    (Nos. 517-517a
    Claim denied.)
    Davenport Fish Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 14, 1926.

    Respondeat superior — State not liable for the torts of its employees. The doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable to the State and it is not liable for the torts of its agents or officers.
    Police powers — State not liable for injuries resultant to the enforcement of police powers. The State is not liable for the acts of its officers in the enforcement of the police powers of the State.
    Marshall & Marshall, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

The Davenport Fish Company, an Iowa corporation having its principal place of business in the city of Davenport, is engaged in the wholesale buying and selling of fish, oysters and celery and like products in Iowa and various other states, including the State of Illinois. This company filed two claims for damages against the State, one for $266.00 and one for $408.62. The claims are based on the seizure and confiscation by representatives of the Department of Agriculture, Division of Game and Fish, of two shipments of fish to Chicago, and seventeen shipments to other cities and villages in Illinois. These shipments were all made by claimant from Davenport in the State of Iowa.

The Attorney General filed a general demurrer to the declaration in each case, and evidence has been taken as if pleas of general issue had been filed. The State introduced no evidence and contends that it is not liable for the damages claimed. The principles involved in the two cases are the same, and they have been consolidated and heard as one.

The evidence shows that on October 31, 1919, the claimant shipped by express from Davenport, Iowa, to the Booth Cold • Storage Company, of Chicago, 1000 pounds of black bass and on the 7th day of November, 1919, 330 pounds of black bass to be frozen. The two shipments were valued at $266.00. They were shipped by claimant to the Booth Cold Storage Company for freezing purposes only and, when frozen by that company, were to be reshipped to claimant in Iowa to supply its trade. The fish were not caught in Illinois, and were and remained the property of the claimant, and were never intended to be sold in this State.

The officers of the Division of Fish and Game of the Department of Agriculture confiscated the fish while, they were in the possession of the Booth Cold Storage Company on the grounds that such possession was in violation of the Game and Fish Code, approved June 24, 1919, which was then in force in Illinois. (Laws 1919, Page 26.)

The evidence further shows that in the months of April and May, 1920, claimant made seventeen other shipments of fish, consisting of catfish, buffalo, perch, bullhead and carp, from Davenport, Iowa, to merchants and dealers in various cities and villages of Illinois for retail trade, amounting in all to the sum of $408.62. These seventeen shipments of fish were also confiscated by the officials of the Division of Fish and Game before they were delivered to the consignees.

Claimant contends that these shipments of fish constituted interstate commerce and that the confiscation of them by the officials of the State was'unlawful and that the State is liable for the damages sustained on account of such unlawful con- . fiscation by the State officials. The Attorney General insists that, even if the confiscation be conceded to have been unlawful, the State is not liable — that the government is never liable for the wrongful acts of its officers and employees.

Section 18 of the Game and Fish Code, approved June 24, 1919, provides that it shall be unlawful for any commercial institution, commission house, restaurant or cafe keeper, or fish dealer, to have any black bass in possession, whether caught or taken within or without the State, or lawfully or unlawfully caught or taken. The same section makes it unlawful to buy, sell, ship or receive for shipment, or for any commercial institution, commission house, restaurant or cafe keeper or fish dealer, to have in possession any catfish, carp, bullhead, etc., between the 1st day of April and the 1st day of June, both inclusive, of any year. Section 80 of this Act provides that all fish sold, shipped or had in possession contrary to any of the provisions of the Act shall be contraband and subject to seizure and confiscation by any officer or employee of the department. Under these provisions of the Game and Fish Code of 1919 the officers were justified in seizing and confiscating the fish.

Claimant, however, insists these provisions of the statute are unconstitutional as applied to the facts in this case. The presumption is that the law is constitutional, and courts will not declare an act of the Legislature unconstitutional unless a correct decision of the question involved requires such con- ■ struction. Were this a suit against the officers who confiscated the fish, the constitutionality of this law might be in- • volved. But in this action against the State it is not.

These shipments of fish were confiscated by the officers in the exercise of the police powers of the State. Counties and other subdivisions of the State for governmental purposes are not liable for the wrongful acts of their officers while endeavoring to enforce the police powers. No government is liable for injuries caused by the acts of its officers, whether such injuries be caused by the negligence of the officer or by his misfeasance, laches or unauthorized exercise of power. (Gibbon v. U. S., 8 Wall 268; Minear v. State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill. 549; Hollenbeck v. Winnebago Co., 95 Ill. 148.) In the case of Chas. C. Robbins (Inc.) v. State (opinion filed in January, 1925,) this same question was involved, and this court said “that the State is not liable in such cases for the torts of its agents or any official of the State, has been repeatedly held by this court, the State courts and the U. S. Sup. Court.” Under the principles announced in these cases claimant has no cause of action. The demurrer is therefore sustained in each case and the case dismissed.


text:
    (No. 769
    Claimant awarded $98.00.)
    Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, a Corporation, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 14, 1926.

      Demurrage —when State liable. The State is liable for a reasonable storage charge after notice given to the proper department by the railroad company.
    George B. Gillespie, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant was on the 23d day of May, 1921, operating its line of railroad in and through the State of Illinois and through the village of Ridge Farm, Vermillion county, Illinois, and it appears that said railroad transported a car containing gravel billed to the State Highway Department; that said billing was directed to the Department of Highway at Ridge Farm, and that notice was given of such shipment to agents of the defendant.

It appears to this court that the gravel in question was stored and kept after such notice was given and according to the laws of the State of Illinois the claimant would be required to make charges for such storage, even if they were disposed to waive their claim and from the record we are of the opinion there is a legal liability.

Therefore the only question remaining for the court to consider is the amount of the award and from the evidence the court must follow the tariff schedule filed and from all the evidence it appears that claimant is entitled to recover $98.00. Therefore claim is allowed in the sum of $98.00.


text:
    (No. 820
    Claim denied.)
    James Garns, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed September 14, 1926.

    Governmental function — when State not liable. Hard roads. The State in the construction of its hard roads exercises a governmental function and is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees therein, while in the discharge of their duty.

      Practice — rule with reference to recovery. It is fundamental that a party cannot recover by making out one case by his pleading and another different one by his evidence.

      Same — claimant must prove case by preponderance of evidence. Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was injured in the manner and at the time alleged in his declaration, and that he sustained the injury while in the course of his employment.
    James P. St. Cerney and W. A. Potts, for claimant.
    . Oscar E. Cablstrom, Attorney General; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

The declaration in this case was-filed June 30, 1924. It alleges that the claimant, while engaged as a laborer in the employment of the State on the hard road between Pekin and Orchard Mines in Peoria county, on the 2d day of July, 1923, in elevating a concrete post, slipped and fell heavily to the ground and dislocated Ms Mp, causing a permanent injury and rendering Mm unable to do any work. To this declaration the State has filed a general and special demurrer. Evidence was taken for both the claimant and the State.

There is no evidence in this record that in any way tends to prove claimant suffered a dislocated hip as charged in the declaration. The only evidence that claimant received an injury is his own statement. He testified that about 11 or 12 o’clock on the 2d day of July, 1923, he, with others, was engaged in setting concrete posts along the hard road, and that while he and one MacMahon were elevating a post to put it in the ground MacMahon gave it a little push, throwing the weight on him, and one of his feet slipped and the weight of the post just spread him apart and hurt his hip; that at the lunch hour he could not sit down to eat because of the pain, and the foreman, Mr. Buck, asked why he did not sit down and he told him he had hurt his hip putting in a post; that he was given lighter work during the afternoon, and when he got home sent for a physician; that his physician, Dr. Balcke, came the next morning and treated him, and has been treating him ever since for sciatic rheumatism.

Claimant is not corroborated in his statement about the injury by any of the others who were present. A. A. MacMahon, Martin Horton and Louis A. Buck were all present working with claimant at the time he says he received the injury, Buck being the foreman. MacMahon testified that if claimant received any injury, he did not know it, that he made no statement to him about it and continued to work with him at the same character of work the remainder of the day. Mr. Buck testified that he did not learn claimant had received an injury, that claimant did not tell him he had been hurt and that he continued to do the same character of work the remainder of the day, there being no lighter work to be done. Mr. Horton, who was working with them, also testified that claimant received no injury that day and that he continued to do the same kind of work during the afternoon as he had in the forenoon. Claimant never returned to work after the 2d of July, and testified that he has been unable to work since that time and under the care of a physician. Buck testified that three or four weeks before the day claimant alleges he received his injury, while the men were at lunch, claimant was walking around eating, and he said to him “Why don’t you sit down and eat your dinner”? and claimant replied “My hip hurts. ’ ’ Andrew Franklin also testified that he heard this conversation and that it «occurred about a month before claimant quit work. Claimant admitted in his examination that some two or three weeks before he was injured he stated he had lumbago. Dr. Balcke testified that when he called to see claimant on the 3d of July he was complaining of pains in the small of his back and that he treated him for lumbago, but that when he called the next time claimant said the pain had gone down his leg and he diagnosed the case as sciatic rheumatism and had been treating him for that ever since. He also said there was ho swelling or other evidence of injury that could be seen, and that his hip was not dislocated.

It is a fundamental principle that a party cannot make out one case by his pleadings and another by his evidence. Claimant’s declaration alleges he received a dislocated hip, which declaration was sworn to by claimant on the 27th day of June, 1924. Claimant’s evidence does not sustain this claim. In fact,- there is no evidence that his hip was dislocated or injured in any way.. We have carefully read the evidence in this case and do not believe claimant is entitled to recover, for any injury. Before he is entitled to recover he must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he received an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The preponderance of the evidence shows that he was not injured in the manner and at the time he claims. It does not seem reasonable that claimant could have received as serious an injury as he says he did and the men working with him not have known it. He was 58 years old and admits that he had previously suffered from lumbago. The evidence tends to show that he may have had an attack of lumbago which was followed by sciatic rheumatism, but it does not show that it was caused by any injury received by him arising out of and in the course of his employment by the State. Claimant having failed to make the proof required by law, his claim is disallowed.