W. A. WILKINSON, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought a refund of a $10.50 automobile license fee after the vehicle was wrecked and disposed of as junk. The court denied the claim, holding that no statute authorizes a refund under these circumstances.

Claim type: Other

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

Headnotes

MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEE-claim for refund-when use of vehicle discontinued during part of year for which issued-no provision in statute for refund to be denied. The facts in this case are almost identical with those in Fox post Floral Company, etc. vs. State, 9 Court of Claims Reports, page 149, and the opinion in that case is decisive herein.

Claimant, pro se. OTTO KERNER, Attorney General; MURRAY F. MILNE, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

MR. JUSTICE YANTS delivered the opinion of the court:

On December 17, 1937 plaintiff herein, according to his complaint, purchased a license for an automobile then owned by him, and paid to the Secretary of State a license fee in the sum of $10.50. He received the license plates, but on the 1st day of January the automobile for which same were purchased was wrecked and was disposed of as junk, and claimant now seeks a refund of the amount so paid by him for the said license plates.

The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint does not set out a claim which the [*379] State of Illinois as a sovereign commonwealth should discharge and pay.

Applications of a similar nature have been frequently before the Court, and in all instances where proper objection has been interposed, the Court has held that no refund is properly allowable. There is no provision of the Motor Vehicle Act or by any other law which authorizes a return of a license fee under the facts set forth in the complaint. If the legislature intended that refunds should be made under any set of circumstances they could have placed such provision in the statutes. Under the facts stated in the complaint plaintiff could not maintain an action against the State if the latter were suable in a court of law. The motion of the Attorney General is therefore sustained and the complaint dismissed.