Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Englander Spring Bed Co. v. State of Illinois

5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 262 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1927-01-19 No. 995
Disposition: (No. 995-Claimant awarded $540.35.) Award: $540.35 Agency: Secretary of State
Cite as: Englander Spring Bed Co. v. State of Illinois, 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 262 (1927)
Legacy General 5 awarded 1920s Englander Spring Bed Co. v. State of Illinois 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 262 1927-01-19 (No. 995-Claimant awarded $540.35.) /opinions/v05-p0282-2/

ENGLANDER SPRING BED COMPANY, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

The claimant sought a refund of franchise tax erroneously paid in excess of the amount legally due. The court awarded $540.35 because the Secretary of State admitted the overpayment and the Attorney General consented to the award.

Claim type: Tax Refund

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

Headnotes

  1. FRANCHISE TAX-when claimant entitled to refund. This case is con- OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLE-

This is a claim for $540.35 filed by the Englander Spring Bed Company for a refund of franchise tax erroneously paid [*263] to the Secretary of State for the period beginning June 30, 1924, and ending July 1, 1925, in excess of the amount legally due under the provision of the General Corporation Act.

The Attorney General has filed a statement, and attached thereto is a copy of a letter from the Secretary of State in which he admits that claimant is entitled to a refund of $540.35, and the Attorney General in his statement consents to an award in favor of claimant in the sum of $540.35.

As it is clear the State collected this sum in excess of the amount due it, we therefore allow an award in favor of claimant in the sum of $540.35.

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.