Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Moore v. State of Illinois

10 Ill. Ct. Cl. 279 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1938-03-27 No. 2587
Disposition: (No. 2587-Claim denied.)
Cite as: Moore v. State of Illinois, 10 Ill. Ct. Cl. 279 (1938)
Legacy General 10 denied 1930s Moore v. State of Illinois 10 Ill. Ct. Cl. 279 1938-03-27 (No. 2587-Claim denied.) /opinions/v10-p0302-1/

WILLIAM MOORE, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought $300 plus interest for a draft issued for military compensation that he alleged was forged and never received. The court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction because it was filed more than five years after the claim accrued, as required by Section 10 of the Court of Claims Act.

Claim type: Other

Statutes cited: Section 10 of the Court of Claims Act

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

Headnotes

  1. LIMITATIONS-Section 10 of Court of Claims Act-when claim barred by. Where it conclusively appears from the pleadings and evidence that claim was not filed within the statutory limitation of five years after same first accrued, and that claimant was not under any disability at any time, the court is without jurisdiction to make award and motion to dismiss will be allowed.

William Moore a soldier in the late war filed a petition with the clerk of this court setting forth that on the 18th day of January, 1924, the State of Illinois was indebted to him in the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) by virtue of an Act entitled "An Act to provide payment of compensation to certain persons who served with the military or naval forces of the United States in the recent war with Germany," approved May 3, 1921.

Claimant charged that on January 8, 1924, the proper state officer issued a draft and mailed it to him at Willow Springs, Illinois, at which time claimant was not living there.

This draft was for the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) and was issued to him in payment for military services. The draft was cashed and returned to the State Treasurer and bore the signature of William Moore and also the signature of a man named John T. Allison. Moore claims that he never received the draft and that no other person has any rightful interest in the draft, and he asks an award from this court in the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00), plus interest at 6% per annum, from January 8, 1924, and the claim is based upon the equity and good conscience doctrine.

The claim is properly sworn to and evidence was taken.

The evidence is quite convincing that somebody forged Moore's name to the draft. The name John T. Allison also appears on the draft and it is not claimed that that was a forgery. It appears that Allison is a man of some property, but nothing in the record disclosed why demand was not made [*350] RATHIE v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.

upon Allison, who subsequently died, or upon his estate, but the claim was not filed until January 31, 1955, more than eleven years after Moore claims the payment was due him.

The Attorney General contends that this court does not have any jurisdiction because it is barred by Section 10 of the Court of Claims Act, which provides as follows: "Every claim against the State cognizable by the Court of Claims, shall be forever barred unless the claim is filed with the secretary of the court within five years after the claim first accrues, saving to infants, idiots, lunatics, insane persons and persons under disability at the time the claim accrued two years from the time the disability is removed."

The evidence does not disclose that Moore was under disability of any kind. This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to enter an award in this instance and for that reason, the claim is hereby dismissed.

Official volume 10 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion between July 1, 1937–June 30, 1939, 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.