Hopf v. State of Illinois — 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 108

JOHN S. HOPF, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought compensation for crop damage caused by wild pheasants protected under state game laws. The court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the claim, holding that the State's protection of game is a proper exercise of police power for which no compensation is due.

Claim type: Property Damage

Cases cited: Schulte v. Warren, 218 Ill. 108; American Express Co. v. The People, 133 Ill. 649

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

Headnotes

PROPERTY DAMAGE-when State not liable for damage caused by wild GAME-protection and preservation of game under police power. The OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLE-

PROPERTY DAMAGE-when State not liable for damage caused by wild game. The State is not liable for damage caused by wild game even though such game is protected by the State game laws. GAME-protection and preservation of game under police power. The protection and preservation of wild game is a proper exercise of the police power of the State. JOHN S. HOPF, pro se. OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLETON, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the court:

The declaration in this case states: “This claim is based on account of wild pheasants, protected under Illinois State Game Laws, scratching out and eating seed corn which necessitated four plantings and failure of crop for year 1925 and a loss of three hundred and sixteen dollars and seventy cents.”

The Attorney General has filed a general demurrer to the declaration, but no briefs have been filed by either claimant or defendant.

Apparently claimant bases his right to an award upon the theory the State is liable for damages caused by wild birds and animals that are protected by the State game laws.

The title to wild game and birds is in the State, and is held by it for the benefit of all the people of the State.

Schulte v. Warren, 218 Ill. 108. The protection and preservation of wild game is a very common police regulation in all civilized countries and is justified on many grounds, one of which is for the purposes of food. American Express Co. v.

The People, 133 Ill. 649. The protection of the pheasants in question being a proper exercise of its police powers by the State, claimant is not entitled to any compensation for the damages, if any, which he may have suffered consequent thereof.

The demurrer is sustained and the case dismissed.