Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Dunham v. State of Illinois

2 Ill. Ct. Cl. 29 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1916-12-20
Disposition: awarded Award: $200.00
Cite as: Dunham v. State of Illinois, 2 Ill. Ct. Cl. 29 (1916)

CHARLES W. DUNHAM v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Case summary

Claimant paid a license fee under an act later declared unconstitutional and sought a refund. The court awarded the amount paid, finding the payment was made under compulsion and duress.

Claim type: Tax Refund

Statutes cited: Act of April 11, 1899 (Session Laws 1899, pp. 268-271)

Cases cited: Mathews v. People, 202 Ill. 389; J. B. Hayden & Co. v. The State; Brierly v. The State

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. LICENSE FEE-when may be recovered. Claimant paid a fee to 30 THE SMITH-HIPPEN CO. v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.

LICENSE FEE-when may be recovered. Claimant paid a fee to obtain a license to operate a private employment agency under the Act of April 11, 1899 (Session Laws 1899, pp. 268-271), under compulsion and duress. The Supreme Court of this State having declared said Act unconstitutional (Mathews v. People, 202 Ill., 389), claimant is entitled to a return of the fee so paid. LOUIS T. ORR, for Claimant.

CHARLES W. DUNHAM

v.

STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Opinion filed December 20, 1906.

LICENSE FEE-when may be recovered. Claimant paid a fee to obtain a license to operate a private employment agency under the Act of April 11, 1899 (Session Laws 1899, pp. 268-271), under compulsion and duress. The Supreme Court of this State having declared said Act unconstitutional (Mathews v. People, 202 Ill., 389), claimant is entitled to a return of the fee so paid.

LOUIS T. ORR, for Claimant.

W. H. STEAD, Attorney General, for State.

Charles W. Dunham filed a claim herein against the State of Illinois for the sum of two hundred ($200.00) dollars, being the amount of a license fee paid by claimant, on or about September 11, 1902, to Honorable James A. Rose, Secretary of State, for a license to operate, in the city of Chicago, a ‘‘private employment agency’’ under the Act of the General Assembly pertaining thereto, passed April 11, 1899, and going into force July 1, 1899, (Session Laws, 1899, pp. 268- 271), said Act being held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court April 24, 1903, in the case of Mathews v. The People, 202 Ill., 389.

The facts in this case are, in our opinion, in no essential particular different from those in the two cases this day decided by us, entitled respectively, J. B. Hayden & Co. v. The State, and Brierly v. The State; in both of which, and particularly the first named, opinions of some length have been filed.

As in those cases, we are of the opinion that the evidence shows the payment of such illegal license fee to the State under what amounts in law to compulsion and duress, and under protest, and that claimant is rightfully entitled to an award for the amount so paid and herein claimed.

We, therefore, accordingly award the claimant herein, Charles W. Dunham, the sum of two hundred ($200.00) dollars.

Official volume 2 (Compiled and Reported by the Authority of the State of Illinois 1906–1916)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.