Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Thompson v. State of Illinois

5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 91 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1925-04-16 No. 798
Disposition: (No. 798-Claimant awarded $727.44.) Award: $727.44 Agency: Chicago State Hospital
Cite as: Thompson v. State of Illinois, 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 91 (1925)
Legacy General 5 awarded 1920s Thompson v. State of Illinois 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 91 1925-04-16 (No. 798-Claimant awarded $727.44.) /opinions/v05-p0111-1/

LUNA B. THOMPSON, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant, an employee of Chicago State Hospital, lost her wearing apparel, trunk, and other goods in a fire on December 16, 1923. The court found the claim equitable and awarded her $727.44.

Claim type: Property Damage

Cases cited: George B. Underwood, No. 152

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

Headnotes

  1. PROPERTY LOSS-when award may be made to State employee for: This

This is a suit brought by Luna B. Thompson, claimant, for loss of goods in the fire which occurred in Chicago State Hospital December 16, 1923, and may be called a companion case with No. 152 of George B. Underwood, in which opinion was filed April, 1925, along with this opinion.

The facts are identical in the two and other cases. Claimant was in the employ of the State in said hospital at time aforesaid when the annex was burnt, in which claimant, without fault on her part, lost all her wearing apparel, trunk, goods and chattels, which form the list filed, seem to be a reasonable amount for an employ to have on hand under the contract of her employment. The prices seem reasonable, and a full bill of particulars, with prices are filed, amounting to $727.44.

The facts seem, in equity and good conscience, to justify the claim. We accordingly award claimant the sum of $727.44.

Official volume 5 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1923–June 30, 1927)  ·  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.