Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Chicago-Springfield Coal Co. v. State of Illinois

5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 235 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1926-11-09 No. 234
Disposition: awarded Award: $159.27
Cite as: Chicago-Springfield Coal Co. v. State of Illinois, 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 235 (1926)
Legacy General 5 awarded 1920s Chicago-Springfield Coal Co. v. State of Illinois 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 235 1926-11-09 awarded /opinions/v05-p0255-1/

(NO. 234-Claimant awarded $159.27.) CHICAGO-SPRINGFIELD COAL CO., Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

The claimant sought reimbursement of a federal war tax on coal shipments to state institutions, which was collected after the state had advised no tax was due. The court awarded $159.27, following the precedent in Clark Coal and Coke Company.

Claim type: Tax Refund

Cases cited: Clark, Coal and Coke Company, No. 821-41

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

Headnotes

  1. CHICAGO-SPRINGFIELD COAL CO., Claimant, vs. STATE OF ILLINOIS, WAR TAX-when refund may be made. This case is controlled by the OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLE-

The facts disclosed in this claim are similar to the case of Clark, Coal and Coke Company, No. 821-41, in which it appeared that no claim was made for war tax on shipments of coal to institutions under the control of defendants. Representatives of defendant were advised that no war tax would [*236] be required on freight charges on the shipments of coal made to State institutions. However after the transaction was closed, the federal authorities collected this tax from claimant and for reasons set forth in the Clark case it is the opinion of this court that claimant is entitled to recover the amount of the tax.

Therefore it is ordered by the court that claimant be allowed the sum of $159.27.

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.