Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Trompeter & Sons v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 221 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1929-04-25 No. 1411
Disposition: (No. 1411-Claimant awarded $695.52.) Award: $695.52 Agency: Department of Public Works and Buildings
Cite as: Trompeter & Sons v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 221 (1929)
Legacy General 6 awarded 1920s Trompeter & Sons v. State of Illinois 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 221 1929-04-25 (No. 1411-Claimant awarded $695.52.) /opinions/v06-p0242-1/

TROMPETER AND SONS, ACO-PARTNERSHIP, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claim for extra hauling of equipment necessary for construction and laying of extra pavement on Section 121 State Bond Issue Route No. 89. The court awarded the claimant $695.52 based on the recommendation of the Director of the Department of Public Works and Buildings and the Attorney General.

Claim type: Contract

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

Headnotes

  1. TROMPETER AND SONS, A CO-PARTNERSHIP, Claimant, vs. STATE OF CONTRACTS-when award will be made. Where a contractor does extra

This is a claim for extra hauling of equipment which became necessary in order to take care of the construction and laying of extra pavement on Section 121 State Bond Issue Route No. 89.

There is no dispute about the facts and the Director of the Department of Public Works and Buildings recommends the allowance of the claim, and in view of the record the Attorney General comes and recommends the allowance of the claim in the sum of Six Hundred and Ninety-five-52/100 ($695.52) Dollars.

Therefore it is recommended that claimant be allowed the sum of Six Hundred Ninety-five-52/100 ($695.52) Dollars.

Official volume 6 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1927–June 30, 1931)  ·  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.