Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Booth Fisheries Company v. State of Illinois

4 Ill. Ct. Cl. 150 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1921-01-19
Disposition: denied Agency: Game and Fish Division
Cite as: Booth Fisheries Company v. State of Illinois, 4 Ill. Ct. Cl. 150 (1921)
Legacy General 4 denied 1920s Booth Fisheries Company v. State of Illinois 4 Ill. Ct. Cl. 150 1921-01-19 denied /opinions/v04-p0165-1/

BOOTH FISHERIES COMPANY, ACORPORATION v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Case summary

The claimant sought compensation for black bass confiscated under the Fish and Game Laws. The court held that Section 18 of the Fish and Game Code was valid and the confiscation was not unconstitutional, so the claim was rejected.

Claim type: Other

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

Headnotes

  1. FISH AND GAME LAW-State is not liable for value of fish confiscated

BOOTH FISHERIES COMPANY, A CORPORATION

v.

STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Opinion filed January 19, 1921.

FISH AND GAME LAW-State is not liable for value of fish confiscated under the Fish and Game Laws. *Section 18, of the Fish and Game Division is a valid legislative enactment, and the action of the State in confiscation of the fish was legal and not unconstitutional.

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General, for State.

The claim before this Court as it appears from the evidence and facts now before the Court is on account of certain "black bass" which claim arose on the legality of the confiscation of the black bass involved.

In the first place it appears that when the controversy arose as to whether or not this case came within the State or not, an agreement was entered between representatives of the petitioners and the Game and Fish division to submit to the Attorney General of this State for an opinion as to the validity of the confiscation in question. The Attorney General rendered an opinion upon such statements of facts and briefs submitted by both parties to the controversy and it appears that the Attorney General held that the confiscation so made was not unconstitutional and that the black bass in question were subject to confiscation by the Division.

It is the opinion of this Court that the opinion of the Attorney General rendered as aforesaid, was in compliance with the law independent of the fact or any agreement made between the parties to abide by the opinion of the Attorney General. This Court does not believe it necessary to pass upon the proposition of whether or not the value of the property in question was properly proved within the rules of evidence. This Court considers that section 18 of the Game and Fish Code is valid and that the action of the Game and Fish Division was not unconstitutional.

It is therefore the judgment of this Court that this claim be and the same is hereby rejected.

Official volume 4 (Compiled and Reported by the Authority of the State of Illinois 1923)  ·  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.