Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

The Pioneer Creamery Company v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 511 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1931-04-16 No. 1666
Disposition: (No. 1666-Claim denied.)
Cite as: The Pioneer Creamery Company v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 511 (1931)
Legacy General 6 denied 1930s The Pioneer Creamery Company v. State of Illinois 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 511 1931-04-16 (No. 1666-Claim denied.) /opinions/v06-p0540-2/

THE PIONEER CREAMERY COMPANY, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought refund of a corporate franchise tax paid on June 27, 1930, arguing that it had dissolved before the tax was due. The court denied the claim, finding that the corporation was not legally dissolved until after the tax was paid and that claimant failed to exercise due diligence.

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 no award will be made. Where claimant fails to exercise due diligence in filing certificate of dissolution before the franchise tax is due and payable, no award will be made for such franchise tax previously paid.

[*512] This is a claim for refund of corporate franchise tax in the sum of Three Hundred Ninety 30/100 ($390.30) Dollars, paid by claimant on June 27th, 1930.

It appears that claimant adopted a resolution to dissolve the said corporation at a special meeting held on July 10th, 1930, and it is alleged that such certificate for dissolution was mailed to the corporation department Secretary of State's office on or about July 15th, 1930. The Attorney General asserts that the records of the Department discloses no communication during the period of June 16th to August 5th, 1930, relative to said certificate for dissolution. The Attorney General further contends that the claimant corporation was not legally dissolved until the 25th day of August, 1930.

This court is of the opinion that corporations are as a rule legally advised in the conduct of their business and it would appear that they should exercise due diligence in all their corporate matters. This court, in view of the fact of the Attorney General's objections, is of the opinion that no redress can be furnished to claimant, in view of all the facts disclosed by the record in this case.

Therefore the claim is disallowed.

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.