Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Arthur Anderson v. State of Illinois

9 Ill. Ct. Cl. 310 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1936-11-10 No. 2904
Disposition: (No. 2904-Claim denied.)
Cite as: Arthur Anderson v. State of Illinois, 9 Ill. Ct. Cl. 310 (1936)
Legacy General 9 denied 1930s Arthur Anderson v. State of Illinois 9 Ill. Ct. Cl. 310 1936-11-10 (No. 2904-Claim denied.) /opinions/v09-p0333-1/

ARTHUR ANDERSON, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought $250,000 for alleged miscarriage of justice in a prior civil case. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the Court of Claims is not an appellate tribunal.

Claim type: Other

Cases cited: Anderson vs. Anderson, 330 Ill. p. 400

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

Headnotes

  1. COURT OF CLAIMS-JURISDICTION. The Court of Claims has no jurisdiction where the claimant has or has had a proper remedy in courts of general jurisdiction.

The claimant, Arthur Anderson, of 7600 S. Halsted Street, Chicago, Illinois, seeks an award of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand ($250,000.00) Dollars as he avers in his complaint "against the Supreme Court of Illinois and the Appellate Court and the State of Illinois, for the miscarriage of justice in the case known as Anderson vs. Anderson, 330 Ill. p. 400." The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction where the claimant has or has had a proper remedy in the courts of law.

The above case of Anderson vs. Anderson was begun as a partition suit in the Superior Court of Cook County in [*311] which the defendant Arthur Anderson filed a cross-bill, asking for a divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Supreme Court on appeal, reversed the judgment of the lower court in part and remanded the cause with directions. Whatever transpired in that case and regardless of what differences may have arisen therein between the claimant Arthur Anderson and the various ones who represented him as counsel, and regardless of the outcome of that litigation, the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction for the hearing of his complaint in regard thereto. The method of appeal in civil litigation from one court to another until the final tribunal which has jurisdiction of such action is reached, is definitely provided for by our laws. The Court of Claims is not such an appellate tribunal.

The motion of the Attorney General is allowed and the case dismissed.

Official volume 9 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1935–June 30, 1937, and advisory Opinions furnished Illinois Emergency Relief Commission)  ·  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.