text:
    (No. 1208
    George W. Dowell, Trustee, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 25, 1929.

      Rehearing denied May 9, 1929.

    George W. Dowell, pro se.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

George W. Dowell, the complainant in this case, in his declaration states that he is the lawful possessor of certain lands and premises, situated in the County of Jackson, which said lands and premises, he used and enjoyed.

The premises being described as a strip of ground in the Southeast Comer of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 7 South, Range 1 West of the Third P. M. containing about 15 acres.

That the Department of Public Works and Buildings, during the months of August, September, October, 1923, constructed a certain public highway known as Route No. 2 and during the construction of said Route No. 2 it became necessary for the department to excavate and make a certain drainage ditch and raised the ground on the highway and the claimant avers that prior to the excavation by the Department of Public Works and Buildings that large* quantities of rain water and surface water and standing water, ran and flowed from the "said ditch or excavation down to and upon the premises of the above described land and that by reason of the excavation of said road and ditch the premises of the claimant became and are wet and swampy and less fit for use, occupation and cultivation, that the rain water and surface water flowing in a different direction since the construction of the road and ditch and with much greater force and violence, that the water backed up against and on the land and premises of the claimant and undermined, washed away, damaged and destroyed the ’ lands of the claimant.

The evidence fails to show that any of the claimant’s land or premises was taken in the construction of the road known as Route No. 2. Three witnesses testified on behalf of the claimant. Isaac Wagner, one of the witnesses of the claimant testified on cross-examination, that he was a coal miner and lived near the premises of the claimant, that the premises. of the claimant and the premises on the opposite side of the roa'd was low and swampy; that after hard rains of several hours duration he has seen water get over the hard road; that the water in receding as a natural water course would go down on the east side of the road and within a few hours on the west side of the road, which was where the claimant’s property was located. The engineers who were employed by the Division of Highways, Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State of Illinois, testified that taking everything in consideration the drains were ample and that twice as many openings or culverts in the hard road as a theoretical matter and now considered them ample.

■ As the Attorney G-eneral says in his statement: “This is not a suit brought on Eminent Domain Act as apparently contemplated by the claimant herein, who in his brief cites only the Eminent Domain Act or cases involving said Act. No property was taken or used of the claimant in the construction of said hard-surfaced road along* or in front of claimant’s premises. Therefore, eminent domain is not involved. This is a case where damages are complained of by reason of the construction of said hard road and the respondent does not believe that the premises of the claimant was damaged in said construction work or by the construction of said hard road.

The witnesses all testified that the premises of the claimant is low and a continuation of the swampy ground directly east and on the opposite side of the road from these premises.”

The court is of the opinion that there is no liability for damages to claimant’s property as a matter of law-. The claim is, therefore, denied and the case dismissed.

On May 9,1929, upon motion to set aside the order heretofore entered the following additional opinion was filed:

Per Curiam: This cause coming on to be heard upon motion of claimant to set aside the order of the court heretofore entered and to grant rehearing, and after argument of counsel and the court having sufficiently reviewed the matter brought upon said motion, and that it appearing that said motion should be denied,

It is therefore considered by the court, that the said motion be, and the same is hereby denied.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Mr. Justice Thomas

license: Public Domain

text:
    (No. 1209
    McClintic-Marshall Construction Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Busby, Weber, Miller & Donovan, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; David J. Kadyk, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

On June 30th, 1927, claimant filed its claim for refund of a franchise tax claimed to have been illegally paid. On April 30th, 1929, the Attorney General made a motion to dismiss the case for want of prosecution. Claimant does not resist said motion. It is therefore ordered that the case he dismissed for want of prosecution and the same is dismissed.


author: Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

text:
    (No. 1236
    John Morris, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 13, 1929.

      Rehearing denied May 9, 1929.

    Boy C. Martin, for claimant.
    Oscar'E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank B. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The evidence in this case shows that claimant was driving a Hudson coach from the City of McLeansboro to the City of Benton, Illinois, on the evening of March 7, 1927, with his wife and children; that when a few miles out of McLeansboro he drove under a viaduct. It had been raining and water was standing under this viaduct and in driving his car through this water he claims it stalled his motor. The evidence shows that water in this subway at the time he drove into it was eight inches deep. The claimant endeavored to start his engine hut the battery run down and he was unable to do so. The evidence further shows that at the time he was stalled under this viaduct, one, Claude McElvain offered to assist him in getting his car out of the water, that he refused his assistance. Sometime after the refusal of assistance the water became very deep upon the car and he claims that his clothing as well as the clothing of his wife and children were ruined and also that the mud and sand accumulated in the crank case of his car.

It is our opinion that this claimant should have at the time of his engine being stalled accepted the help of Claude McElvain and permitted his car to be pulled from under the viaduct in this low place where water was fast accumulating and that he was negligent in not doing so. The testimony is without contradiction that in ordinary rains the drainage outlets in this subway were sufficient prior to the laying of pavement in the City of McLeansboro, which, while it probably did not materially increase the drainage area did rush the water into this subway many times faster.

We fail to see wherein the State of Illinois is liable for the damages and therefore, this claim is denied and dismissed.

On May 9, 1929, upon petition for rehearing the following additional opinion was filed:

In the matter of rehearing in the case of John Morris, rehearing being granted, and no further reappearance of the attorney for the claimant and no further evidence or statement that would alter or contradict the former opinion of this court offered, the court finds that there is no reason to vary or contradict the original opinion of the court.

Therefore, the petition for rehearing is denied and the case dismissed.


author: Mr. Justice Leech

text:
    (No. 1292
    I. H. Buchman, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

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

delivered the opinion of the court:

The declaration in this case sets forth that I. H. Buchman, the claimant, on the 11th day of June, A. D. 1926, was working as an engineer in the Highway Department of the State of Illinois and that he was stationed at Elgin, Illinois, under the direction of George N. Lamb, district engineer for the Northern District of Illinois; that it was a part of his duties as engineer to survey right of way and supervise the construction and location of roads and highways being built by the State of Illinois.

The claimant further alleges that on the 11th day of June while he was going to work on a section of road then under construction in Lake County, he was struck and severely crushed, maimed and injured and the bones of his hips were crushed and broken; that the claimant was confined to a hospital and to his home for more than one year thereafter.

Claimant alleges that Ms leg was shortened through the knitting of the bones more than three inches and that he has been and is permanently crippled thereby.

The Attorney General filed a statement and argument and in Ms argument he says: “Under the Workmen’s Compensation Law this claimant will be entitled to doctor and hospital bills amounting to $418.50, necessary travelling expenses, consisting of $125.00 making a total of $543.50 and from 75 to 90 per cent for loss of the use of his leg.”

The court feel that as a matter of good conscience, social justice and equity and following the law as laid down by the •Workmen’s Compensation Act, we are of the opinion that an award should be made and we, therefore, award the claimant the sum of $2,268.00.


text:
    (No. 1290
    Union Trust Company, Administrator de Bonis Non of the Estate of Robert Glendinning, Claimant, deceased, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

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

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant asks for an award of $14,517.49 on account of excess inheritance taxes alleged to have been erroneously paid by the executors of the last will and testament of Robert Glendinning, deceased. In its declaration claimant states that on July 30, 1920, the county judge of Cook County entered an order approving the appraiser’s report fixing the inheritance tax due from the estate at $121,221.94 and that the then executors of the estate, on July 31, 1920, paid to the county treasurer of Cook County $115,160.84, being the amount of tax fixed by the appraiser less than 5% discount allowed for the payment thereof within 6 months after it became due. It is also alleged that the appraiser made a mistake in adding the appraised cash value of the estate and in computing and fixing the amount of taxes assessed, and that said mistake was discovered a long while after it was made. That on January 16,1928, a petition was filed with the county judge of Cook County and that the said county judge on the same day entered an order correcting and amending the appraiser’s report so as to make it show the amount of tax due from the estate to be $105,940.37. The difference between this sum, less 5% and the sum paid is the amount for which an award is asked against the State.

The Attorney General has filed a general demurrer to the declaration, and urges the State is not liable to refund the amount claimed, afterward he withdrew the demurrer and recommended that the court allow the sum of $14,517.49 as a refund. Therefore, upon the recommendation of the Attorney General an award is recommended in the sum of $14,-517.49.


text:
    (No. 1295
    James E. Maher, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    W. W. Weight, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for damages to the property of claimant in the County of Stark and State of Illinois. It is claimed that by reason of the construction of the bridge in question here, the embankment or approachments leading thereto acted as a' dam, thereby causing the water to remain and back up on claimant’s property, and by reason of which conditions, claimant’s crops were destroyed as claimed.

It is the opinion of the court, as urged by the Attorney General, that damages have not been established in the review of all the facts and circumstances in this case. It is the opinion of the court that the contention of the Attorney General is correct.

Therefore, it is recommended that the claim be denied.


author: Per Curiam:

text:
    (No. 1301
    William L. Smith, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Clarence B. Davis, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; .Frank B. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Per Curiam:

This cause coming on to be heard upon oral motion of claimant to dismiss the case, and it appearing that said case should be dismissed, it is therefore considered by the court that the said cause be and the same is hereby dismissed.


author:
Mr. Chief Justice Clarity
      Per Curiam:

text:
    (No. 1307
    A. J. Johnson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 28, 1929.

      Rehearing denied May 9, 1929.

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

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed by A. J. Johnson, residing on a farm located about two miles north of Alexander, Morgan county, Illinois, Mr. Johnson having been a tenant on a farm of 510% acres for a period of over forty years. Three hundred and twenty acres of the farm is first class farming land for which Mr. Johnson paid $9.00 an acre cash rent, each year for the last five years. A portion of the 320 acres abuts upon the hard road known as State Highway No. 3. This claim is based upon damages done to sixty acres of the land which is located in the East Half of Section 13, Township 15, North, Range 9, West of the Third Principal Meridian, Morgan county, Illinois, and which is immediately west of the hard road. Claimant asks damages in the sum of $1,500.00 on account of loss of crops during the year 1926, when the water falling upon said sixty acres reduced the yield of the crop so that claimant sustained a total loss of $1,500.00, and claimant avers that this loss was due to faulty construction of the hard road and improper means of drainage.

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

We have carefully considered the testimony introduced in support of this claim, and have studied the plat submitted by the State. We find that the highest point on said hard road involved in this case was at the southern end of said damaged property and has an elevation of 649.60; that the highest point in the ditch on said hard road involved in this suit was on the south and is 649.4 and has a gradual downward slope entirely along and in front of said alleged damaged farm lands; that the right of way line along the west side of said premises is at all points higher than the highest point in said ditch involved in this case; that the ditch to the west of the hard road involved in this case is at all points therein lower than the lowest point in the said farm lands alleged to be damaged as a result of water being held on said premises; that the climatological data given shows the continous rains during the months of May, June and July, in the year 1926 to be far above the average, and the fact that water was not properly drained from said premises during that period was due to no negligence on the part of the defendant, the State of Illinois. The claim is accordingly denied.

On May 9, 1929, upon petition for rehearing the following additional opinion was filed:

Per Curiam:

This cause coming on for rehearing upon petition of claimant filed on April 22, 1929, and after argument of counsel and the court having sufficiently reviewed the matter brought upon said petition, and that it appearing* that said petition should be denied,

It is therefore considered by the court, that the said petition he, and the same is hereby denied.


author: Mr.- Justice Thomas

text:
    (No. 1331
    Charles Beard, a Minor, by his Mother and Next Friend, Beulah Beard, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

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

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant in his declaration alleges that he is a minor of the age of 14 years. That on the 16th day of July, 1926, he was recommitted to the St. Charles School for Boys of the State of Illinois for a violation of parole, he having been previously committed by the legal authorities of the State to serve a sentence for a violation of the criminal law. That on August 5th, 1927, while an inmate of that institution, he w*as feeding corn into an electric corn grinding machine; that the machine became clogged and claimant placed his right hand in the machine to remove Some of the corn which had caused the machine to become clogged; that while he was removing* the corn from the machine his hand became caught in the machine-and was greatly cut, lacerated, torn and injured, and by reason thereof the first finger was amputated at the first joint, the second finger at the second joint and the third finger at the second joint, and by reason thereof his hand was permanently crippled and disabled. He files his claim for $1,-500.00 for said injuries.

The Attorney General has filed a demurrer to the declaration and attorney for claimant has submitted his claim without brief and argument. This court has repeatedly held that the State is not legally liable for the injury of an inmate serving a sentence in one of its institutions. (Ryan v. State, 4 C. C. 57; Tiller v. State, 4 C. C. 243). The demurrer is sustained and the claim dismissed.


text:
    (No. 1338
    Ed Hazelwood, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

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

delivered the opinion of the court:

The declaration shows.that on August 30th, 1927, claimant was an inmate of the Illinois State Farm near Vandalia, serving a sentence for petit larceny; that it was his duty, under the direction of certain State employees, to repair certain tractors belonging to and in use by the State; that on August 30th, 1927, claimant was ordered by the head farmer of said State Farm to convey a tractor which was out of repair to a place on said farm where it could be repaired by the claimant ; that, pursuant to this order, claimant was riding another tractor and was pulling the disabled tractor; that a one armed inmate of the farm was, under the direction of the head farmer, riding and guiding the disabled tractor, although the head farmer knew that he was incompetent to manage said tractor, and that, because of the incompetency and negligence of said inmate, the disabled tractor ran against and upon the other tractor, crushing claimant and holding him in such a position that his left foot and ankle were badly burned by the hot motor of the tractor on which he was riding; that because of such burn he has been ill ever since said accident and has suffered great pain; that on September 9th, 1927, he was discharged from the State Farm, but has been and is unable to work and perform the labors usually done by him, and that his left foot and ankle are permanently crippled.

Claimant alleges damages of $5,000.00 and asks for an award against the State.

The Attorney General has filed a general demurrer to the declaration. Claimant’s attorney has submitted the case without brief or argument.

Claimant was not an employee of the State at the time of the accident but was an inmate of a State institution and would not come under the provisions of the workmen’s Compensation Act. This court has repeatedly held that the State is not legally or equitably liable to an inmate who receives an injury while confined in one of its institutions.

The demurrer is therefore sustained and the cause dismissed.


text:
    (No. 1360
    Otto M. Bing, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Hart & Brodie, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Caklstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. •
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This claim is based on a claim for damages sustained to a Cadillac car owned by the claimant in a collision with a State truck on March 5, 1927, about 10 miles west of Gibson City, Illinois.

The declaration states that on or about the 5th day of March, 1927, the claimant was the owner of and in possession of, operating and controlling a certain motor vehicle in a northwesterly direction upon and along the State highway at or near Gibson City, Illinois. Claimant alleges that while operating his motor vehicle, a servant or agent of the defendant was operating a motor truck upon and along said highway, that said motor truck ran into and collided with the motor vehicle of the claimant and that the motor vehicle of the claimant was greatly injured and damaged.

As we view the evidence in this case we find that the truck of the defendant was on the shoulder and right hand side going east on the Hard Road Route No. 9 near Gibson City, Illinois, that the claimant was driving west on said road at the same time which was on a curve and near the county line between the counties of Ford and McLean; that when almost around said curve his car ran off the pavement onto a soft shoulder of the road and while attempting to get back on the pavement the claimant’s car skidded into the front end of the truck of the defendant.

The evidence shows that the claimant stated that his claim had been paid by an insurance company in the sum asked for.

We are of the opinion that there is no cause of action against the State of Illinois and the claim is denied and the cause dismissed.


text:
    (No. 1366
    Booth Fisheries Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

      Rehearing denied June 26, 1929.

    Paul O’Donnell, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; David J. Kadyk, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

This claim is for the refund of $9,456.62 franchise taxes alleged to have been illegally collected' from claimant, a foreign corporation, by the Secretary of State. The taxes asked to be refunded were paid as follows:

July 26, 1920, $2,031.30.

Sept. 17, 1921, $1,860.60.

July 30, 1923, $1,298.83.

July 30, 1924, $1,404.68.

July H, 1925, $1,437.31.

June 28, 1926, $1,423.90.

Since the taxes were paid the Supreme Court has held the law under which they were collected unconstitutional, and claimant now asks for an award against the State on the ground that the State had no legal right to' collect them. A tax voluntarily paid cannot be recovered back although the law under which it was paid is unconstitutional. (Yates v. Royal Ins. Co., 200 Ill. 202). Many other cases announcing the same rule could be cited but we deem it unnecessary. The stipulation appearing in the record shows the taxes paid in the years 1920 and 1921 were not paid under protest. Having been voluntarily paid claimant cannot maintain an action for their recovery.

Section 10 of the Act creating the Court of Claims provides that every claim against the State, cognizable by the Court of Claims shall be forever barred unless the claim is filed with the secretary of the court within five years after the claim first accrued. The claim for the refund of these taxes accrued immediately upon their payment to the Secretary of State. This suit was not filed until August 7, 1928, more than five years after the payment of the taxes in July, 1923. This statute is mandatory and bars an award for the taxes paid for the years 1920, 1921 and 1923.

Section 2a of the Act in relation to the payment of the public money of the State into the State Treasury provides that every officer receiving public moneys for the State paid under protest shall hold such moneys thirty days and upon the expiration of that period deposit the same with the State Treasurer unless the party making such payment shall within such period file a bill in chancery and secure a temporary injunction restraining the making of such deposit, in which case such payment shall be held until the final order or decree of the court. The stipulation in the record shows that claimant, within thirty days after making payment of the tax for the years 1923, 1924 and 1925, filed a suit in equity in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County and secured a temporary injunction restraining the Secretary of State from depositing the tax paid in the State Treasury, each of said suits being based on the alleged unconstitutionality of the statute under which they were collected; that the Attorney General filed a demurrer to the bill in each case; that the demurrer was sustained in each case and the bill dismissed for want of equity; that no appeal was taken from the order dismissing the bill in either case; and that thé order dismissing the bill in each and all of the cases was entered on the theory that the law was valid and constitutional.

It is" fundamental in our jurisprudence that the judgment of a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and parties to the cause before it is binding upon the parties until reversed or set aside by a court having appellate jurisdiction. This rule is so universally known that citation of authorities is unnecessary. ' As claimant did not have these judgments reviewed either on appeal or writ of error they are still in full force and effect and binding upon it.

The Court of Claims has been given no appellate jiirisdiction and cannot review or set aside the judgments of the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, and to allow an award for these taxes would, in effect, be doing that.

Claimant says that the amount involved in the cases was too small to warrant an appeal to the Supreme Court. It also says that because of the erroneous decision of the Circuit Court in the suits above mentioned it was not considered practical to secure an injunction covering the 1926 tax payment. The statute gave claimant a remedy to recover the taxes if they were illegally collected. Claimant elected not to pursue that remedy. Where a claimant had a remedy in a court of general jurisdiction and failed to pursue such remedy this court will not take jurisdiction. (Moline Plow Co. v. State, 5 Ct. Cl. 277). The claim is therefore denied and the case dismissed.

On June 26, 1929, upon petition for rehearing the following additional opinion was filed:

The original opinion in this case was filed on May 9, 1929. On May 24, 1929, claimant wired the Secretary of State that a petition for rehearing would be filed, and on June 4, 1929, petition for a rehearing was filed by claimant. This petition does not set up any matter for rehearing which was not fully considered by the court in the original opinion in the case.

The petition for rehearing is denied.


text:
    (No. 1377
    American Open Racing Association, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed February 13, 1929.

      Rehearing denied March 28, 1929.

    Oramel B. Irwin, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant’s demand is for $879.50, and is based on a com tract with the Department of Agriculture. The contract is set out in and made a part of the declaration as an exhibit thereto. By the terms of the contract claimant agrees to furnish auto races at the State Fair on the 18th and 25 days of August, 1928, to promote and manage the races and to pay all prizes or purses for the two days’ races. The claimant is to collect all admission fees paid for entrance to the Fair Grounds or to the main grand stand box and reserve seats and other admissions of said grand stand and bleachers on the respective days of said races and out of such fees so collected is to pay the State for the rights and privileges therein conferred fifty per cent of said fees collected on the day the same are collected.

The declaration alleges that subsequent to the execution of the contract it was agreed by the parties thereto that the State should sell all tickets for admission to the bleachers, grand stand and box seats, collect the monies therefor and pay one-half of all said money so collected to claimant; that the State sold all tickets for admission to bleachers, grandstand and box seats on August 25, 1928, collected all money therefor and duly paid the claimant one-half of the monies so collected from the sale of tickets for admission to grand stand and box seats but failed and refused to pay claimant one-half or part of the monies received by it from the sale of tickets for admission to the bleachers; and that one-half of the monies received by the State from the sale of tickets of admission to the bleachers is the sum of $879.50.

No plea has been filed to the declaration and, under the rules of this court, the cause must be heard as though a general traverse had been filed.

This suit is based on the theory that the State received the money derived from the sale of tickets for admission to the bleachers on August 25th, and refuses to pay claimant one-half thereof as it had agreed to do; in other words, it is a suit to recover money had and received by the State for the use of claimant. The only evidence introduced is an affidavit of S. J. Stanard, Director of Agriculture. In it he states positively that the State did not receive any portion of the monies derived from the sale of bleacher tickets on August 25th.

As the State received no money for admissions to the bleachers on August 25th, it owes claimant nothing on that account. The claim is therefore denied and the case dismissed.

On March 28,1929, upon petition for rehearing the following additional opinion was filed:

Petition for rehearing in the above cause was filed on the 9th day of March, A. D. 1929. In the original opinion in this cause the court took into consideration all the matters and facts set up in the petition for rehearing and was unable to see where the defendant was legally liable to the claimant and found for the defendant. The petition for rehearing will therefore be denied and the original opinion affirmed.

On May 9, 1929, upon motion to set aside order denying the petition for rehearing the following additional opinion was filed:

Claimant filed a petition for rehearing in the above cause on the 9th day of March, 1929, and this petition was denied on March 28th, 1929. On April 25th, 1929, claimant filed a motion to set aside the order filed on March 28th denying the petition for rehearing. Claimant’s motion is denied.


text:
    (No. 1381
    Raymond Heise, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Joseph A. Londrigan, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

The declaration alleges that on the 8th day of April, 1927, claimant, who was then a minor, was confined to the State Reformatory at Pontiac; and that on that date, while he was pouring chlorinated lime into a washing machine, under the orders of the reformatory authorities, the lime splashed into his right eye, resulting in serious injury thereto. The declaration also alleges that claimant was in the exercise of due care and caution, and that the accidental injury was due to the negligence of the State in not providing goggles to the inmates or some method of protection from such injury; that claimant was released from the reformatory on October 15, 1927; that ever since said accident he has suffered great pain, and has been prevented from following any gainful occupation; that he has spent $1,000.00 endeavoring to be cured of said wound, and that he has lost the complete and permanent use of his right eye. He alleges damages in the amount of $10,000.00 and asks for an award against the State.

The Attorney General has filed a general demurrer to claimant’s declaration. Claimant’s attorney has submitted the case without brief or argument.

Claimant was not an employee of the State at the time of the accident, but was an inmate of a State institution and would not come under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This Court has repeatedly held that the State is not legally or equitably liable to. an inmate who receives an injury while confined in one of its institutions.

The demurrer is therefore sustained and the cause dismissed.


text:
    (No. 1382
    E. E. Huckaba, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    E. E. Huckaba, pro se.
    Oscab E. Cablstbom, Attorney General; Frank E. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for damages resulting from an alleged purposed change in the location of State Eoute No. 11 in front of claimant’s farm.

We are of the opinion that the claim for damages of this matter would not lie against the State of Illinois even if the route was changed on the theory that the State has the right to change any part of said hard road system at any time it deems advisable. The claimant on cross-examination in answer to this question; “You have not been damaged any, as yet, because of any change or contemplated change, have you?” his answer was, “I have not been hurt any yet, no.”

The claim is denied and the cause dismissed.


author: Mr. Chíbe Justice Clarity

text:
    (No. 1393
    Ozell Bush, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Benjamin G. Pollard, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chíbe Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant on Aug. 5th, 1927 as a member of Co. F, Illinois National Guard and during said guard’s period of encampment and while in line of duty a fractious horse ridden by another member of the National Guard jumped on claimant striking him in the back causing a hernia tumor to appear in his back, and it does- appear that claimant received a dangerous and permanent injury and that such injury occurred in the line of patriotic duty. The claimant asked for Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars, but in line of precedent the only measure that can be considered here is the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The Attorney General comes and taking into consideration the fact that the extent of the injury "of claimant according to the testimony was estimated to have been eighty per cent and sixty per cent respectively and taking that as a basis and the fact of the dependents of the deceased, the claimant ought to recover measuring the Workmen’s Compensation Act together with the medical and hospitalization expenses, the sum of Three Thousand Four Hundred and Forty-two ($3,442.00) Dollars.

Therefore it is recommended that claimant be allowed Three Thousand Four Hundred Forty-two ($3,442.00) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1394
    North American Light and Power Company of Maine, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Drypr & Brown, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General, David J. Kadvic, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Per Curiam:

This cause coming on to be heard upon motion of claimant, that it he allowed to dismiss its claim in the above entitled cause without prejudice and it appearing that there is no reason why the cause should not he dismissed;

It is therefore considered by the court, that the case be, and the same is hereby dismissed.


text:
    (No. 1408
    Harry Wilson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Harry Wilson, pro se
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Boy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

The claimant in this case, Harry Wilson, was on the 20th day of November, A. D. 1928, employed in the Department of Public Welfare of the State of Illinois, as messenger clerk and chauffeur and while working for the State in that department, he was directed to deliver packages to the Lincoln State School at Lincoln, Illinois. While in the performance of his duty he was injured.

delivered the opinion of the court:

The facts concerning the accident are agreed and the Attorney General has recommended an award of $701.25.

We, therefore, make an award in the amount of $701.25.


text:
    (No. 1429
    O. W. Meyers, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Kuhn & Benson, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for damages by reason of a highway accident. From the statement of claim it appears that O. W. Meyers of the Town of Batavia, County of Kane, State of Illinois, was riding in an automobile on the public highway from the City of Aurora to the City of Batavia; said highway being known as State Bond Issue Route No. 22 under the operation and control of the State of Illinois; that on the 17th day of October, A. D. 1924, a motor truck, bearing No. 122 and bearing state motor truck vehicle license No. 4488 for the year 1924 and being under the care and management, control and maintenance of the State of Illinois. That said motor truck was driven by an employe of the State and the claimant alleges that the motor truck struck the motor car of the claimant and that the claimant sustained damages in sum of $169.25.

The only evidence in the case is a sworn statement of the claimant on behalf of the claimant and Exhibit “B”, same being a copy of a letter from G. N. Lamb, District Engineer, which Exhibit “B” is attached to the statement of the Attorney General filed in this case.

G. N. Lamb, District Engineer, states that he is unable to find any data in his files concerning the accident which O. W. Meyers alleges to have damaged his car. Mr. Lamb further states in his letter that he interviewed one of the State employees, Clyde Hallock, who saw the accident and gave .Mr. Lamb an account of the accident substantiating everything that Mr. Meyers had told him. Mr. Hallock stated that the driver of the truck was entirely at fault.

After reading the sworn statement of the claimant and the Exhibit “B,” a copy of the letter from G-. N. Lamb, we believe as a matter of equity and good conscience this claim should be allowed.

We, therefore, allow the claimant the sum of $169.25.


text:
    (No. 1432
    Iowa Bridge Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    George F. Barrett, and Charles V. Barrett, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Caelstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Per Curiam:

The claimant in this case seeks to recover from the State of Illinois, a deficiency of $12,618.51, sustained by them, on account of the erection by claimant of a .bridge about one-half mile south of the Mackinaw River bridge, on Route 24, Tazewell County, Illinois, referred to as the Green Valley bridge; over and above the amount received by them from the State of Illinois, of $10,138.19, which was the amount they bid on the contract for the construction of same. Claimant relies for recovery, on the fact that after excavation was begun it was discovered that the sub-soil at a depth of about fifteen feet was a fine water bearing sand, which, at a depth necessary to perform the contract, had a tendency to boil under pressure that this necessitated a complete change in the method of operation and also lengthened the time to complete the job, and that claimant in bidding on the work in qiiéstion received a notice from the Department of • Public Works & Buildings, Division of Highways, State óf Illinois, in which it was stated that the soil where the bridge was to be erected, consisted of clay and gravel.

It does appear from the records in this case that there was a misunderstanding as to the nature of the soil when the bid was made and that claimant entered upon the contract without knowledge of the unusual hazards.

In view of all the facts in this case, the court is of the opinion that if an award should be allowed, it should be in the sum of $12,618.51.

This court therefore recommends that if the Legislature sees fit to make an award to the claimant, that the award should be for the sum of $12,618.51.


text:
    Opal R. Jones, 1434; J. S. Hutson, 1435, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Clark & Noel, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Boy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a consolidated claim which is filed for damages, growing out of the burning of certain crops of corn on the-respective claimants ’ lands. The lands of the claimants abut upon the public highway known as State Bond Issue Boad, between the villages of Homer and Sidney in the County of Champaign, State of Illinois.

On the 10th day of October, A. D. 1928, an employe of the State of Illinois acting under the direction and supervision of the Highway Department of the State of Illinois set fire to grass and weeds growing along said highway and by reason thereof the fire spread on the adjoining lands owned. by the claimants causing growing corn to catch fire and be consumed. This was a total loss to the claimants.

The Attorney General filed- his statement setting forth that the facts have been correctly stated and that there is no dispute as to the law, and recommends that an award be made.

We therefore, award the claimants the sum of $556.00.


text:
    (No. 1440
    G. A. Miller and Son, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

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

delivered the opinion of the court:

The declaration in this case shows that G. A. Miller and B. B. Miller were doing business under the name and style of G. A. Miller and Son, Lake County, Illinois.

The declaration states that they are bona fide residents and tax payers of the State of Illinois; and that on or about the 15th day of April, 1926, by' order of the State of Illinois they consented that a herd of eighteen pure bred Holstein cattle be destroyed by reason of a positive tubercular showing made upon the tests of Dr. G. A. Jensen of Antioch, Illinois.

That within thirty days .after said cattle adjudged to be infected with tuberculosis they were destroyed; that said herd had been owned for more than six months by the claimants and that none of the herd was imported into this State within three years of the date of test. •

Claimants further allege that four grade cattle were also destroyed at the time and under the same conditions as the pure bred herd.

The Attorney General filed a statement of claim, attached thereto was a copy of a letter marked Exhibit “A” written to the Attorney General by Stillman J. Stanard, Director of Agriculture in which the Director of Agriculture states that in his opinion the claimants have a just claim and should be reimbursed in the amount of $900.00.

We, therefore, award the claimants the sum of $900.00.


text:
    (No. 1452
    Albert A. Hansen, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Faulkner & Faulkner, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Boy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claimant was employed as a keeper at the penitentiary at Joliet. On the 29th day of November, A. D. 1926, while engaged in his employment, he was seriously and permanently injured in an accident for which he was in no way responsible. The injury necessitated two operations. His hospital and physician’s bills amounted to $568.00, none of which was paid by the State. His condition is such that he has had to be treated by a physician at least once each week since leaving the hospital, and the evidence shows these weekly treatments will have to be continued as long as he lives. As a result of the injury he was incapacitated from work and will never be able to perform any work that requires him to be on his feet. He has a wife, and one child ten years of age.

There is no legal liability on the part of the State to pay claimant compensation for his injuries. But in view of the circumstances under which these injuries were received the Attorney General recommends that claimant be compensated and we feel that he should be. We therefore recommend that the General Assembly allow him the sum of $3,000.00.


text:
    (No. 1456
    Patrick Gillen, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    ' Noah Gullett, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General, Frank R. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

Now on this 8th day of May, A. D. 1929, in open court, the court granted the motion filed by the Attorney General, and case dismissed on ground of barred by statute of limitations.


text:
    (No. 1460
    Willard C. Sipe, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Joseph L. McLaughlin, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Merrill F. Wehmhoee, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The declaration was filed by Willard C. Sipe, the claimant, who represents among other things that he is a resident citizen of Sullivan, Illinois, that on the 30th day of July, A. D. 1926, he enlisted in the National Guards of the State of Illinois, and was in the regular discharge of his duties in said employment and that while enroute from the City of Sullivan to the regular encampment place at Camp Grant, Illinois, he received an injury. That while passing through the coach of the train at the regular call when the noon day lunch was to be served to the guardsmen and while going through to the baggage car, an officer’s bedding roll fell, on account of the jostling of the train and struck him upon the extended knee and the blow and weight of the impact crushed or fractured the bone in his ankle joint.

It further appears from the evidence that the claimant was completely disabled for seven and one-half (7%) months and that thereafter for a period of three (3) months he was partially incapacitated.

The Attorney General has filed a statement as follows:

“The claimant in his statement states the facts in accordance with the record, properly states the law in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and properly applies the fact to the law in his argument. However, on account of the fact that he has the use of his ankle and has only pain in it when the weather is damp or stormy, the respondent believes that the per cent of loss of use of said ankle, as stated in his statement of facts, is high.
The respondent does believe that this claimant, if the court feels that he is entitled to something, would be entitled to $700.00, in accordance with the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
I, therefore, submit this claim to the court for such disposition as they care to make, with the recommendation that this claim be allowed in the sum of $700.00.”

We, therefore, award the claimant the sum of $700.00.


text:
    (No. 1462
    R. H. Musick, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Bidgely & Bidgely, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; B. D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a case in which the claimant, B. H. Musick, is asking for an award in the sum of $531.85; said amount being for doctor bills, hospital and nursing bills, as a result of an injury which he sustained while in the course of his employment for the State of Illinois. It appears that on or about October 14, 1924, said claimant while acting as State highway patrolman on Route 8 between Eureka and Chenoa, and while in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, was riding his motorcycle. A Ford sedan came out from a yard on the right side of the road near the eastern limits of Eureka, and the fender of thé Ford hit or struck the hub of the side car attached to the motorcycle of claimant, and claimant was thrown fifteen or eighteen feet on the pavement, causing an injury to his head and breaking the hip bone at the ball and socket joint.

It further appears according to the evidence that no permanent injury has been sustained by claimant and the said amount which he is asking for, as aforestated, is for his reasonable doctor, hospital and nursing bills, and is a just claim.

It is, therefore, recommended that the sum of $531.85 be awarded to claimant.


text:
    (No. 1463
    Harry D. McCreary, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      1929.

    Brown, Hay and Stephens, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Oarlstrom, Attorney General; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant-Attorney General, for respondent
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant in this case files his declaration which is sworn to by him.

The Attorney General files his statement as follows:

“That the facts in this case are about as follows:
That on the 7th day of February, A. D. 1927, and for a long period of time prior thereto, claimant was an employee of the State of Illinois, and that he was, as such employee assistant highway engineer of the Highway Department of said State; that as such assistant highway engineer, it was his duty to supervise the clearing of the right of way of the completed sections of the hard surfaced roads of said State; that on said date, in line with said duties, he was directed by his superior to go to the city of Virginia, Cass County, Illinois, to supervise the clearing of the right of way of what is known as Section 5 of Route 3 of the system of hard surfaced highways in said State of Illinois, and that pursuant to such orders, he went to said city of Virginia and commenced his work there; that as such assistant highway engineer, he was furnished by said State of Illinois with an automobile to be used by him in going to and coming from his work; that on said date, he drove to said city of Virginia in said automobile so furnished by said State of Illinois; that upon the completion of said work in said city of Virginia, he started to return to the city of Springfield, Illinois, in said automobile, and that in returning to said city of Springfield, he drove upon and along Route 3 from the city of Virginia to the village of Alexander and from said village of Alexander, he proceeded in a northeasterly direction upon and along Route 10, which leads from said village of Alexander to said city of Springfield; that on said Route 10, approximately one mile west of the junction of Route 10 and 4 southwest of the city of Springfield, claimant was driving said automobile toward said city of Springfield at a rate of speed between thirty and thirty-five miles an hour; that as claimant approached a certain turn or curve on said Route 10, located as above described, an automobile coming upon and along said Route 10 from the east, made said curve and proceeded to the south along said Route 10 toward the claimant; that said automobile was driven at a high rate of speed and as it approached the claimant, it suddenly swerved and turned across the hard surfaced portion of said Route 10 immediately in front of the said automobile driven by claimant; that said automobile was driven by one of two Italians, one of whom was named Scalisia, the name of the other being unknown; that diligent efforts have been made to ascertain which of said parties were driving said automobile at the time of said accident but that it has been impossible to obtain said information; that said automobile was driven with such force and violence into and against the automobile driven by claimant as to forcé it off the hard surfaced portion of said Route 10 into the ditch upon the east side of said road and that as a result of said collision, the claimant was rendered unconscious and was severally bruised and injured; that as a result of said accident and collision, the claimant sustained an impacted fracture of the femur of the left leg; that following said collision and as a direct result thereof, the. claimant was confined in St. John’s Hospital in the city of Springfield, Illinois, from said date until the 30th day of April, 1927; that thereafter, until the 15th day of July, A. D. 1927, the claimant was confined to his home; that thereafter, until the first day of September, 1927, claimant was unable to do more than walk slowly about the neighborhood in which he lived, with the aid of crutches; that as a further result of said collision and injury the claimant was unable to take up his duties above described until the first day of September, 1927; that from the date of said collision until the present time, the claimant has been under the care of a physician and that the claimant still is forced by reason of said collision and injury to take medical treatments for his said injury; that a portion of his expenses, including hospital expenses and doctor bills, have been paid by the State of Illinois, but that since said injury and accident and as a result thereof, the claimant has expended for medicine, treatments, dentist’s expenses, additional expenses at said hospital and for various other necessaries the sum of $500.00, and that as a result of said injury, he will be compelled to expend further sums of money, the amount of such expenditure being unknown; that as a result of said collision and injury, the claimant’s left leg is considerably shorter than the right one and that the claimant has sustained a serious permanent injury which will, during the remainder of his life, handicap him in the prosecution of the duties of his profession; that at the time of said collision and injury, the average weekly wage of the claimant was $48.67 that he also has two children at a tender age which, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, he would be entitled to an additional amount for them.”

The Attorney General has computed the amount which would he due the claimant under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and has found the amount to be $2,020.00. The Attorney General recommends that this amount be paid.

We, therefore, award the claimant the sum of $2,020.00.


text:
    (No. 1468
    Loren Harmon, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    M. J. Faletti, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears that claimant was employed by the State of Illinois in the Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways. It appears that while on a bumper choking truck, another truck crashed into the claimant and received an injury to his left hip and that hip was draining for a long time; that the State did not pay his doctor bills; that he had to undergo an operation in December, 1928.

It appears that the doctor bills and other services for the benefit of claimant and loss of time amounted to $1,196.50. The Attorney General comes and recommends that claimant be allowed said amount.

Therefore it is recommended by the court that claimant be allowed the sum of Eleven Hundred Ninety-six and 50/100 ($1,196.50) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1470
    Arthur Van Gorder, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Ralph P. Sheridan, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

This claimant, on the night of October 8,1927, while in the performance of his duties as a State highway patrol officer, was attempting to stop a violator of the Motor Vehicle Laws of this State. That, while attempting so to do, an automobile coming from the opposite direction side-swiped the motorcycle on which this claimant was riding, thereby throwing him off, causing him great bodily injuries.

Under the Workmen’s Compensation Law this claimant is entitled to medical and hospital services. Sufficient proofs have been given that this claimant expended $100.00 for medical services, and $23.00 for hospital services as a result of said injury.

We, therefore, recommend that this claim be allowed in the sum of $123.00.


text:
    (No. 1471
    Glenn R. Deerin, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Guy L. Smith, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank E. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This cause coming on to be heard and upon stipulations of the parties and entries of appearance and the testimony taken by the respective parties in this cause, the court finds that it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter in the said cause that Glenn E. Deerin on December 16, 1928, while in the employ of the State of Illinois as tuberculosis inspector, in driving upon and along the hard road between Taylorville and Geneva in the performance of his duty as such inspector, suffered injuries as a result of an automobile accident as follows:

Loss of ten teeth, a scalp wound, a sprained shoulder, puncture of left leg below knee, two broken ribs and fracture of sternum.

The court finds that under the compensation act of the State of Illinois that the claimant paid out as a result of said accident the following items:

Work done in replacing teeth..................................... $193.00
Doctor bill ....................................................... 7,00
X-Ray pictures ................................................... 14.00
Other expense .................................................... 20.00
Total ........................................................ $234.00

And that under the Compensation Act he is entitled to compensation for the replacement of his teeth and the work done as above itemized in the sum of $234.00.

That he was receiving a salary of $225.00 per month, it is therefore recommended by the court that the claimant be allowed the sum of $234.00 for his expenses.


text:
    (No. 1472
    W. A. Johnson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Guy L. Smith, 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 cause coming on to be heard and upon the stipulations of the parties and entries of appearance and the testimony taken by the respective parties in this cause the court finds that it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter in the said cause.

That W. A. Johnson on December 16th, 1928, while in the employ of the State of Illinois as tuberculosis inspector in driving upon and along the hard road between Taylorville and Geneva in the performance of his duty as such inspector suffered injuries as a result of an automobile accident; that two ribs were broken; jaw was broken and his right leg was broken in three places causing Mr. Johnson to have the total loss of the use of his right leg and the complete loss of his automobile.

The court finds that under the Compensation Act of the State of Illinois that the claimant paid out as a result of the said accident the following items:

Doctor bill ....................................................... $ 30.00
Removal of case.................................................. 5.00
Set of teeth....................................................... 50.00
Doctor bill (Dr. Sloan)........................................... 175.00
Hospital bill ..................................................... 25.35
Total expense ................................................ $475.35

and that under the Compensation Act he is entitled to compensation at the rate of Fourteen Dollars ($14.00) per week for one hundred ninety (190) weeks, making a total of Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty ($2,660.00) Dollars. That he was receiving a salary of Two Hundred Twenty-five ($225.00) per month.

The court further finds that the claimant makes no claim for the loss of his automobile or for temporary total incapacity.

It is, therefore, ordered by the court that the claimant be allowed the sum of Four Hundred Seventy-five Dollars and Thirty-five Cents ($475.35) for his actual expenses and the further sum of Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars ($2,660.00) compensation for the total loss of the use of his right leg, making a total of Three Thousand One Hundred Thirty-five Dollars and Thirty-five Cents ($3,135.35).


text:
    (No. 1473
    Ruth Mills, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Hall & Dushbr, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Boy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The evidence in this case states that Buth Mills is the mother of Thornton Anthony Mills, Jr., and that her said son was born on April 12, 1911, and enlisted in Co. K, 129th Infantry, Illinois National Guard, on or about the first day of October, 1926; that he trained with said company until the summer encampment of his regiment at Camp Grant, Illinois, in the year 1927; that he attended said encampment and reported at Camp Grant, Illinois, for duty with his said company, on or about the 31st day of July, 1927, and was on duty with his said company at said camp until August 13, 1927.

That on the 13th day of August, 1927, the said Thornton Anthony Mills, while he was on duty at Camp Grant, with his said company was ordered by his commanding officer to do kitchen police duty, which meant that he was to assist in the preparation and serving of food to his company and washing dishes and cleaning up the dining room and kitchen after the meal was served to his said company; that after the meal was served he ate several sandwiches filled with meat which was tainted and caused him to become sick; which developed into multiple neuritis or infantile paralysis, and then into Lobar pneumonia from which he died on November 1, 1927.

That the claimant has no means of support except by her own efforts and she has two children now living which she is obliged to support besides supporting herself. That the father of said children and of Thornton Anthony Mills, is dead; and that the said Thornton Anthony Mills, Jr., before he reported for duty at Camp Grant, Illinois, in the 1927 summer encampment worked for the Winnebago County Forest Preserve and that he made about $5.00 each day and that he contributed this sum to the support of the claimant and that by reason and on aécount of the death of said Thornton Anthony Mills, Jr., claimant has been deprived of his contribution and the support that he gave to her and to her said children.

This is a case that comes within the Military and Naval Code rather than under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. We are of the opinion that as a matter of social justice and equity the claimant who was the mother of the deceased is entitled to an award for the reason that she has lost the support of her son and we are of the opinion that there is a liability on the part of the State of Illinois.

We, therefore, award the claimant the sum of $2,000.00.


text:
    (No. 1476
    Fred Rickenberg, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Bat Sesler, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Boy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears that claimant was an inmate of the Illinois State Beformatory located at Pontiac, Illinois; that on the morning of Oct. 21st, 1927, at the direction of an officer of said institution the claimant, was directed- to enter at the manhole of one of the boilers of said institution for the purpose of cleaning out said boiler-; that while in the performance of his duties an explosion occurred and the claimant was Very seriously burned on both legs, arms and abdomen and it appears that the injuries were permanent.

It appears that the claimant was considered a high grade prisoner performing his duties faithfully and while the defendant has the right to control and restrain him in accordance with the law, yet the claimant had the right to maintain his health and bodily strength. Therefore it would appear that he should be returned from his restraint as healthy in body as when he was committed.

This is sustained by a very strong letter written by the County Judge of Livingston County who speaks in very laudible terms of the character and efficiency of claimant and recommends that something should be done in his behalf. The record of claimant has been endorsed by officials of said institution.

The claimant urges that he should be given the opportunity of returning to society in a healthy condition as when he entered the said institution and claims that he should be awarded the sum of $5,000.00 as he is wholly incapable of supporting himself.

This court is reluctant about making an award of any kind under the circumstances but it is the belief of the court that in view of the fact of the very fine record of the claimant and that he was injured in the performance of a duty assigned to him by his superiors and that the court should consider the injuries under the Workmen’s Compensation Act as the' claimant was really working for the State performing a duty when he was injured.

The court is of the opinion and hereby recommends that claimant be awarded the sum of Two Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1477
    Lawrence Buss, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

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

delivered the opinion of the court:

This claimant ivas, on the 8th day of October, 1927, a laboror in the Division of Highways, Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State of Illinois. As such laboror it was a part of his duties to work and watch a tar pot or kettle used in keeping tar warm for use on the public highways of this State.

While in the performance of his duties, working with said tar pot or kettle on said date same exploded, throwing hot tar into his face, therefore, completely blinding him in both eyes.

Under the Workmen’s Compensation Law this claimant is entitled to $3,750.00, plus doctor and hospital bills. After making deductions for payments heretofore made while not on duty this claimant is entitled to $3,000.00 under said Act.

We, therefore, recommend that this claim be allowed in the sum of $3,000.00.


text:
    (No. 1478
    Illinois Central Railroad Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

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

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed to recover from the State of Illinois the sum of $255.95 for repairs to a spur track in connecting the Illinois Normal University.

It appears that the work was done and no objections made by those in charge representing the State of Illinois.

It is recommended by the Attorney General that the claim be allowed.

It is therefore considered by the court that claimant be awarded the sum of $255.95.


text:
    (No. 1491
    Francis M. Devlin, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Francis M. Devlin, pro se.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant alleges that he was appointed to the position as a member of the State Mining Board on Dec. 1st, 1922; that he performed the duties of said member since his appointment; that the 52nd General Assembly enacted a law which went into effect July 1st, 1921 increasing the salary of this claimant from $500.00 to $1,000.00 per - annum; that he received the sum of $500.00 per annum or Five Dollars per day for one whole day’s services; that since Dec. 1st, 1922, the salary was increased from Five to Ten Dollars per day and the claimant alleges that there is now due him from the 1st day of July, 1927, the sum of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars which has not been paid by the State. It does appear that this court did grant relief up until July 1st, 1927.

The Attorney General comes and submits the disposition of the case to the court.

The court is of the opinion that it would not be proper to assume the authority to fix and regulate salaries. If an emergency presents itself where the Legislature and others in authority have not the opportunity to adjust matters and claims of this character then it would seem the court ought to furnish relief but we believe ample time has elapsed and opportunity has presented itself since this controversy started sufficient to have this matter determined independent of this court.

It is therefore recommended that this claim be denied.


text:
    (No. 1480
    Judson P. Wetherby, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    C. T. Ireland, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Boy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent..
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a case in which claim is filed for necessary first aid, medical and surgical services, hospital service and nursing for claimant who as assistant engineer was in the employ of the Division of Highways since Nov. 10th, 1922. It appears that in 1928 he was resident engineer in charge of certain sections - under State Bond Issue Boute No. 89. It further appears that on Sept. 20th, 1928, claimant in the course of his employment while the blasting of stumps was being carried on and while about 600 feet away from the blasting a very large fragment was propelled through the air and struck claimant’s leg. It appears that his limb was broken in three places, the tibia was broken in three places with one piece moved clear away from the other pieces. The limb was badly bruised and lacerated. The limb was opened up and loose fragments replaced with a plate.

The claimant was given first aid and it appears that one doctor had a charge of $950.00 and another $136.00, one nurse for $558.00 and another nurse for $654.00. The claim for hospital services were $1,259.00, also a claim for $192.00 for board and room for the nurse and for ambulance services the sum of $45.00, making a total claim for medical, nursing and hospital services of $3,794.00.

The court is certainly impressed with the fact that everything was done for the claimant that could be done, but the court is of the opinion that while the defendant the State of Illinois is willing to do everything that a private corporation could do, yet we do not feel that any additional obligation should be placed upon the State of Illinois beyond that of a corporation of a private nature.

• The evidence shows that claimant was receiving the sum of $210.00 per month which it appears he is still receiving. We believe the defendant has been very kind to the claimant in this respect and taking all the facts into consideration and measuring the situation from the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and the grievious injury to the claimant, the court recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of Four Thousand ($4,000.00) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1482
    R. H. Musick, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

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

delivered the opinion of the court:

On the 18th of May, 1925, while employed by the Department of Public Works and Buildings of Illinois as a highway patrol officer, and in the pursuit of his regular duties, claimant was riding a motorcycle, patrolling a section of State Bond Issue Route No. 8, near El Paso, Illinois. His motorcycle had a sidecar attachment and on this sidecar, and attached thereto, was a large box about 3 feet in height and about 30 inches square which obstructed the view of the person riding the motorcycle. In attempting to pass a team and wagon driven by Samuel Culp, of El Paso, on account of said sidecar attachment obstructing claimant’s view, the fender of the sidecar hit the wagon, causing the motorcycle to turn over and breaking and crushing, claimant’s right leg. Claimant has filed a petition with this court for $10,000 damages for permanent injury. The Attorney General has filed a motion for dismissal on the ground that under date of March 1, 1927, claimant filed a claim, Number 1154, for the same injuries for which he is asking compensation in this cause. In Cause Number 1154 the court made an award of $3,000.00 which appears in the Court of Claims appropriation bill of 1927, and said amount was paid by the proper State authority to this claimant or his attorney of record. The court cannot allow a second award for the same injury and the motion of the Attorney General is therefore granted and the claim dismissed.


text:
    (No. 1483
    Elizabeth E. Williams, Surviving Widow of Harry C. Williams, Deceased; and as Next Friend for Murray P. Williams, Harry K. Williams, Gaylord V. Williams and Julia P. Williams, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Boyer & Leonard, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank li. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimants, Elizabeth E. Williams, widow of Harry C. Williams, deceased, and as next friend for Murray P. Williams, Harry K. Williams, Gaylord V. Williams, and Julia P. Williams, respectfully represent to this court, the following:

1. That on March 28, A. D. 1929, Harry C. Williams, the husband of the claimant, Elizabeth E. Williams, and the father of the claimants, Murray P. Williams, Harry K. Williams, Gaylord V. Williams and Julia P. Williams, was injured by reason of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment as supervising patrolman of the Maintenance Department of the State Highway Department of Illinois, at Rantoul, Illinois, and that as a direct and proximate result of such injury the said Harry C. Williams died at Burnham Hospital in the City of Champaign, Illinois, on April 4, A. D. 1929.

2. The time of said accident was in the afternoon of March 28, 1929, and the place of said accident was in the garage or storage shed, at Rantoul, Illinois, rented by the State Highway Department of the State of Illinois, from Mr. Holtapp for the storage of machinery and implements used by the Maintenance Department of the State Highway Department in looking after the State paved highways in Champaign County, Illinois, under the jurisdiction of the said Highway Department of the State of Illinois.

3. The amount claimed herein is the sum of Four Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Dollars ($4,550).

4. The other facts necessary for a full understanding of this claim are as follows:

The said Harry C. Williams has been continuously employed by the State of Illinois for more than five years, as supervising patrolman of the Maintenance Department of the Department of Highways of the State of Illinois, with jurisdiction over what are known as Illinois State Route 25, from the City of Urbana to and beyond the northerly limits of Champaign County, Illinois, and over Illinois State Route 10, from the City of Urbana eastwardly to and beyond the county line of Champaign County, Illinois, he being under the jurisdiction of the Department of Highways of the State of Illinois, and being employed and paid by the State of Illinois ; that his duties consisted of supervising the maintenance of the said State highways, keeping the earth shoulders adjacent to the paved portions of the said public highways suitably maintained and keeping the weeds and grass mowed on said earth shoulders and within the limits of the highway lines on said State highways, and in having the general supervision of the repairs and maintenance of the road machinery owned by the State of Illinois and used by its Department of Highways in maintaining the said State roads; that the said State Highway Department used and rented a certain garage owned by a man named Holtapp, in Rantoul, Illinois, which said garage was used for the storage and the making of repairs on the road machinery owned by the State; that on March 28, 1929, there was in said garage a certain mowing-machine owned by the State of Illinois, and shipped to Rantoul, Illinois, to be used upon the said State highways, under the jurisdiction of the said Harry C. Williams, which said mowing machine had been shipped from the factory and was not completely assembled; that in the course of his duties as supervising patrolman of the Maintenance Department of the Highway Department of Illinois, the said Harry C. Williams was assisting one George Overholtz, another employee of the State Highway Department, in assembling the said mowing-machine, and in so doing the said Harry C. Williams was engaged in cutting a number of wires which were used to tie up the springs, and other parts of the said mowing machine, and in so doing, one of the said wires when cut by the pliers óf the said Harry C. Williams, punctured the right hand or the thumb on the right hand of the said Harry C. Williams; that the said wire was painted and somewhat rusty; that the said wound commenced paining the said Harry C. Williams badly by six o’clock of the same afternoon (March 28, 1929), and he consulted Dr. P. C. Casto early the next morning, March 29, 1929, and on Saturday, March 30, 1929, he was removed to Burnham Hospital, where he died on April 4, 1929; that the cause of his death was sceptic infection, or streptococcus infection, commonly called blood poisoning, occasioned by the said wound on the thumb of the right hand, caused by the puncturing- of said hand by the wire as aforesaid, on the occasion aforesaid; and that said death was directly and proximately caused by the said accident, which arose out of and in the course of the employment of the said Harry C. Williams by the State of Illinois, through the State Highway Department in the Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State of Illinois.

5. Claimants further state that the said Harry C. Williams at the time of his death, left him surviving the claimant, Elizabeth E. Williams, his widow, aged 48 years; and his minor children, the claimants, Julia P. Williams, aged 17; Murray P. Williams, aged 12; Harry K. Williams, aged 8, and Gaylord V. Williams, aged 5; and that all of said claimants were dependent upon him for support, and that he was under legal obligation to support them at the time of his injury; that he was living with the said claimants, and that they were entirely dependent upon him for support at said time.

6. Claimants further state that the said Harry C. Williams for more than one year prior to his death, had been continuously in the employ of the same employer, namely: The State of Illinois through its State Highway Department, in the Department of Public Works and Buildings of said State, and that his average annual earnings were the sum of One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty ($1,680) Dollars, and that therefore, under the requirements of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Illinois, he would be entitled to the maximum amount of weekly payments for the purpose of computing compensation under said Act; that as a direct and proximate result of the injuries aforesaid, he was immediately treated by Dr. P. C. Casto of St. Joseph, Illinois, and was, as above set forth, removed to Burnham Hospital in Champaign, Illinois, where he died and was also treated by Dr. W. L. G-ray, 412 Illinois Building, Champaign, Illinois.

7. Claimants further state that the said Harry C. Williams received no compensation payments of any kind from said employer, or from anyone else, as a result of said accident nor have any of his medical or hospital expenses been paid.

8. Claimants further state that the said Henry C. Williams was the father of more than three minor children, above named, under the age of sixteen years, as above set forth, and that therefore the maximum schedules provided by the Illinois Compensation Act, in Section 7 thereof, should apply, and that the claimants are entitled to the sum of Four Thousand Five Hundred Fifty ($4,550) Dollars, plus the actual medical surgical and hospital fees for services incurred by reason of the accidental injury above set forth.

Claimants therefore say that the State of Illinois whose direct agency or 'arm the State Highway Department in the Department of Public Works and Buildings of said State is, is liable to the claimants for the death of the said Harry C. Williams, resulting from the injury sustained by him aforesaid, in the course of his employment as aforesaid in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Act commonly called the “Workmen’s Compensation Act of Illinois,” the items of which said compensation are as follows:

(a) Medical and hospital services, including $103.10 to the Burnham Hospital, at Champaign, Ill., and to Julia Donahue, nurse, and Harriet Tucker, nurse; $74.50 for the services of Dr. P. C. Casto of St. Joseph, Ill., and $50.00, for the services of Dr. W. L.
Gray, of Champaign, Illinois ......................'............. $ 227.60
(h) Por the death of the said Harry C. Williams, leaving more than 3 children under the age of 16 years at the time of his death, as hereinabove set forth, and as fixed by Section 7 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Illinois..;..................... $4,550.00
$4,777.60

Claimants further state that their* claim has not been presented to any State department or State officer, nor to any person, corporation, or tribunal; and claimants further state that they have not received any payment on account of such claim, directly or indirectly.

Claimants further state that no other person has any interest in said claim and that they have hereinbefore set forth in detail each item of the amount claimed on account of the death resulting from the injury aforesaid.

Wherefore, claimants pray that this Court will hear and determine the liability of the State of Illinois for the accidental injuries aforesaid suffered by the said Harry C. Williams in the course of his employment as aforesaid, in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Act commonly called “The Workmen’s Compensation Act.”

The Attorney General filed on May 2, 1929, a statement in which he admits that the amount of the award in this claim is $4,550.00 plus doctor and hospital bills of $227.60 making a total of $4,777.60.

We are of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to an award under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and also as a matter of social justice and equity. We, therefore, award the claimant the sum of $4,777.60.


text:
    (No. 1484
    William Hutton, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

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

delivered the opinion of the court:

Now on this 8th day of May, A. D. 1929, in open court, the court granted the motion filed by the Attorney General, and case dismissed on ground of barred by Statute of Limitations.


text:
    (No. 1485
    Peter Joyce, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

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

delivered the opinion of the court:

Now on this 8th day of May, A. D. 1929, in open court, the court granted the motion filed by the Attorney General, and case dismissed on ground of barred by Statute of Limitations.


text:
    (No. 1492
    Schuyler E. Redpath, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

    Schuyler E. Redpath, pro se.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney, General; Frank R. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim appearing to be similar to the case of Devlin v. State of Illinois, No. 1491 and for the reasons set forth in the opinion in that claim it is recommended that this claim be denied.


text:
    (No. 1494
    Florence Fisher, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

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

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears that Robert L. Fisher the husband of the claimant was an employee of the State of Illinois and in the course of his employment on April 17th, 1929, as a highway patrolman at a point two miles north of Rossville he was struck by a north bound automobile and killed. There is no contention about the employment of the claimant’s husband or that he was killed in-the course of employment and that he was receiving $175.00 per month. It does appear further that said decedent left surviving him his widow this claimant and one child aged 6 years and also another child a stepson.

The Attorney General coming and admitting the facts as above set forth and setting forth that measuring the damages under the Workmen’s Compensation Act that claimant ought to be allowed the sum of $4,175.00.

This court therefore recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of Four Thousand One Hundred Seventy-five ($4,-175.00) Dollars.


text:
    (No. 1495
    M. S. Coleman, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

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

delivered tlie opinion of the court:

Now on this 9th day of May, A. D. 1929, in open court the court sustained the demurrer filed by the Attorney General herein. The case is, therefore, dismissed on the ground that this claimant has received his full wage as provided for in the Civil Administrative Code of the State of Illinois.


text:
    (No. 1496
    Fred S. Pfahler, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 9, 1929.

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

delivered the opinion of the court:

Now on this 9th day of May, A. D. 1929, in open court the court sustained the demurrer filed by the Attorney General herein. The case is, therefore, dismissed on the ground that this claimant has received his full wage as provided for in the Civil Administrative Code of the State of Illinois.


text:
    (No. 1497
    Woods Brothers Construction Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 17, 1929.

    Newton Jenkins, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank II. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This claimant, on or about January 5, 1928, entered into a contract with the respondent herein for the construction of a culvert, known as the Gum Creek Culvert, over the Illinois and Michigan Canal, in the City of Marseilles, in the County of LaSalle and State of Illinois, at actual and necessary cost, plus 15% thereof. In accordance with the terms of said contract the claimant herein constructed said culvert at a net expense to itself including the 15% over and above actual cost, of $5,219.97.

It appears from the records and files of the Division of Waterways filed in this cause that the claimant did construct said culvert in accordance with its contract with the respondent, the engineers of the Division of Waterways having approved all of said works it appears that the claimant herein is entitled to the amount asked. The same has also been approved by Honorable H. H. Kóhn, Director of Purchases and Construction, and Honorable Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General.

We, therefore, recommend that this claim be allowed in the sum of $5,219.97.


text:
    (No. 934
    Eugene A. Lord and John D. Talbott, Co-Partners, Doing Business Under Firm Name of Lord & Talbott, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed June 26, 1929.

    Louis H. Hanna, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

Now on this 26th day of June, A. D. 1929, being the day heretofore fixed for the hearing of said motion, comes the State of Illinois, respondent, by its attorneys, Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General of said State, and Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General of said State;

And it appearing unto the court that the State of Illinois, the respondent, having heretofore filed its motion to show cause why said case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution;

And it further appearing that notice of said motion has been given to claimants in said above entitled case;

And it further appearing that no appearance or response appears upon the record from the said claimants, the court is of the opinion that said claimants are in default.

Therefore, it is the order of the court that the said above entitled case is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.


text:
    (No. 1142
    A. H. Bowlby, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed June 26, 1929.

    James D. Bruner, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

Now on this 26th day of June, A. D. 1929, being the day heretofore fixed for the hearing of said motion, comes the State of Illinois, respondent, by its attorneys, Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General of said State, and Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General of said State;

And it appearing unto the court that the State of Illinois, the respondent, having heretofore filed its motion to show cause why said case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution;

And it further appearing that notice of said motion has been given to claimant in said above entitled case;

And it further appearing that no appearance or response appears upon the record from the said claimant, the court is •of the opinion that said claimant is in default.

Therefore, it is the order of the court that the said above entitled case is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.


text:
    (No. 1147
    Anthony Zavily, Guardian and Next Friend of Anna Zavily, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed June 26, 1929.

    Garnsey, Wood & Lennon, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

Now on this 26th day of June, A. D. 1929, being the day heretofore fixed for the hearing of said motion, comes the State of Illinois, respondent, by its attorneys, Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General of said State, and Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General of said State;

And it appearing unto the court that the State of Illinois, the respondent, having heretofore filed its motion to show .cause why said case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution;

And it further appearing that notice of said motion has been given to claimant in said above entitled case;

And it further appearing that no appearance or response appears upon the record from the said claimant, the court is of the opinion that said claimant is in default.

Therefore, it is the order of the court that the said above entitled case is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution


text:
    (No. 1151
    Isham Sharp, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed June 26, 1929.

    L. E. Stone, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Boy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

Now on this 26th day of June, A. D. 1929, being the day heretofore fixed for the hearing of said motion, comes the State of Illinois, respondent, by its attorneys, Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General of said State, and Boy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General of said State;

And it appearing unto the court that the State of Illinois, the respondent, having heretofore filed its motion to .show cause why said case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution;

And it further appearing that notice of said motion has been given to claimant in said above entitled case ;

And it further appearing that no appearance or response appears upon the record from the said claimant, the court is of the opinion that said claimant is in default.

Therefore, it is the order of the court that said above entitled case is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.


text:
    (No. 1169
    William Vollbrocht, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed June 26, 1929.

    Marks Alexander, for claimant.
    Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

Now on this 26th day of June, A. D. 1929, being the day heretofore fixed for the hearing of said motion, comes the-State of Illinois, respondent, by its attorneys, Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General of said State, and Roy D. Johnson,, Assistant Attorney General of said State;

And it appearing unto the court that the State of Illinois,, the respondent, having heretofore filed its motion to show-cause why said case should not be dismissed for want of' prosecution;

And it further appearing that notice of said motion has been given to claimant in said above entitled case ;

And it further appearing that no appearance or response appears upon the record from the said claimant, the court is of the opinion that said claimant is in default.

Therefore, it is the order of the court that the said hbove entitled case is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.


author: Mr. Chief Justice Clabity

text:
    (No. 1177
    Emert Withall, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed June 26, 1929.

    John D. Tuknbaugh, for claimant.
    Oscak E. Cablstkom, Attorney General; Boy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clabity

delivered the opinion of the court:

Now on this 26th day of June, A. D. 1929, being the day heretofore fixed for the hearing of said motion, comes the State of Illinois, respondent, by its attorneys, Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General of said State, and Boy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General of said State;

And it appearing unto the court that the State of Illinois, the respondent, having heretofore filed its motion to show cause why said case should. not be dismissed for want of prosecution;

And it further appearing that notice of said motion has been given to claimant in said above entitled case;

And it further appearing that no appearance or response appears upon the record from the said claimant, the court is of the opinion that said claimant is in default.

Therefore, it is the order of the court that the said above entitled case is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.


text:
    (No. 1358
    M. L. Hays, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed June 26, 1929.

    Gael Choisseb, for claimant.
    Oscab E. Cablstbom, Attorney General; Boy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
   Mr. Chief Justice Clabity

delivered the opinion of the court:

Now on this 26th day of June, A. D. 1929, being the day heretofore fixed for the hearing of said motion, comes the State of Illinois, respondent, by its attorneys, Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General of said State and Boy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General of said State;

And it appearing unto the court that the State of Illinois, the respondent, having heretofore filed its motion to show cause why said case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution;.

And it further appearing that notice of said motion has been given to claimant in said above entitled case;

And it further appearing that no appearance or response appears upon the record from the said claimant, the court is of the opinion that said claimant is in default.

Therefore, it is the order of the court that the said above entitled case is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.