DIVISION OF FIRE PREVENTION, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COM- MERCE, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
The Division of Fire Prevention sought an order directing that interest money be paid from the general fund into the Fire Prevention fund. The court held it lacked jurisdiction to determine a controversy between departments and denied the claim.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- DIVISION OF FIRE PREVENTION, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COM- STATE DEPARTMENTS-when Court of Claims will not determine a con- OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLE-
The claimant seeks the order of this court to direct that certain interest money be paid from the general fund into the Fire Prevention fund, it being claimed that certain monies collected remain in the custody of divers State Treasurers of Illinois, and that no interest has been placed to the credit of the Fire Prevention fund.
It is the opinion of this court that under the pleadings in the case, that this court has no jurisdiction to determine in this manner, a controversy between departments.
Therefore, it is considered by the court that the claim be dismissed.
On February 13, 1929, upon petition for rehearing the following additional opinion was filed:
This is a case coming on for rehearing, an opinion in same having been filed Dec. 5th, 1928, the claim being denied. After a careful consideration of the petition for rehearing, this court is of the opinion that it is without jurisdiction in this case in the manner and form in which it was presented.
Therefore it is recommended that petition for rehearing be denied. [*141] (Claims allowed.)
JOSEPH AND MARY SOLAND, 1303; VIOLA YONKERS, 1304; BERTHA ROARK, 1305, Claimants, vs. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Opinion filed February 14, 1929.
PROPERTY DAMAGE-when State liable for damages on account of the construction of a viaduct for hard road purposes. Where it appears from the evidence that claimants suffered damage to real property by reason of a construction of a viaduct for hard road purposes, an award will be made.
JOHN L. WALKER, for claimants.
OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLETON, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE CLARDY delivered the opinion of the court: The above named claimants are all represented by the same attorney and all the cases are considered jointly by the Attorney General and therefore this court will consider them in one opinion.
This court has heretofore held in similar cases that there is a liability on the part of the State on account of the construction of the viaduct over the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railroad where it intersects with Route 23, just east of the City of Joliet, in the County of Will and State of Illinois.
It appears that all three claimants were owners of property adjacent to or near this viaduct and that the viaduct did damage the property.
It appears from the statements of the Attorney General, that the damages of these claimants was fairly shown by a real estate expert and from the evidence of this expert and the statement of the Attorney General in which it appears that the amount of damages would be as follows. And this court is of the opinion and does recommend allowance of the following amounts to the above named claimants in the following manner: To Joseph and Mary Soland, No. 1303, the court recommends an allowance of Twenty-five Hundred Twenty-five ($2,525.00) Dollars.
To Viola Yonkers, No. 1304, the court recommends an allowance of Fourteen Hundred Forty-five ($1,445.00) Dollars.
To Bertha Roark, No. 1305, the court recommends an allowance of Two Thousand Eighty-five ($2,085.00) Dollars.