Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

C. E. Carson Company v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 520 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1931-05-14 No. 1486
Disposition: (No. 1486-Claimant awarded $48,496.53.) Award: $48,496.53
Cite as: C. E. Carson Company v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 520 (1931)
Legacy General 6 awarded 1930s C. E. Carson Company v. State of Illinois 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 520 1931-05-14 (No. 1486-Claimant awarded $48,496.53.) /opinions/v06-p0549-1/

C. E. CARSON COMPANY, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

The claimant sought $73,319.34 for delays caused by a route change necessitated by litigation over right of way. The court, based on a stipulation, awarded $48,496.53 for the damages caused by the delays.

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. CONTRACTS-when award will be made for losses sustained under. Where

The claimant files its claim for $73,319.34 for delays in completing its contract with the State of Illinois for the construction of Sections 16, 17 and 18 of Hard Road Bond Issue Route No. 18 after it had entered upon performance by reason of a change of route made necessary by litigation forcing the State to change the route as originally platted and claimant had the contract to construct a concrete highway.

It is stipulated and agreed between the claimant and the legal representatives of the State of Illinois that the claimant was damaged in the sum of $48,496.53 on account of the delays caused by litigation over the right of way which the State had not procured before the letting of the contract by the State of Illinois to complete the construction of the concrete road over said Sections 16, 17 and 18 of S. B. I. Route No. 18.

On the request of the legal representatives of the State the court allows an award for $48,496.53.

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.