ILLINOIS IOTAP OWER COMPANY, Claimant, w. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. Opinion $led hrovember 10, 19.tZ. G. E. CHAPMAN, f o r claimant.
Case summary
Claimant provided electric service to the Illinois State Game Farm but undercharged due to a meter constant error; the appropriation lapsed before the correct amount could be paid. The court awarded $2,634.00, the unexpended balance at the time the service was rendered.
Cases cited: Ferguus vs. Brady, 277 Ill. 272
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
ILLINOIS IOTAP OWER COMPANY, Claimant, w. STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Respondent.
Opinion $led hrovember 10, 19.tZ.
G. E. CHAPMAN, for claimant.
GEORGE F. BARRETT, Attorney General; ROBERT V. OSTROM,Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
SEmwEs-Lapse of appropriation before payment- unexpended balance in -when award may be made for. Where claimant furnished electric service to State, as contracted for by it, and submits a €till therefor, in correct amount, within a reasonable time, and due to no fault or negligence of claimant same is not approved and vouchered for payment before lapse of appropriation from which it is payable, an award for amount due may be made, where at the time such service was rendered there were sufficient funds remaining therein to pay same. .
[*309] J.
ECKERT,
On June 16, 1939, at the request of the Department of Conservation of the State of Illinois, the claimant increased the transformer capacity for electric service at the Illinois State Game Farm, near Mt. Vernon, Illinois, and to measure the additional electricity supplied, set its electric meter No. 3903 having a dial'constant of 40. From June 16, 1939, to May 16, 1941, there passed through this meter, for the use of the State Garm Farm, a total of 90,kOO kilowatt hours of electricity, at a cost of $3,020.50. Although claimant correctly read the meter, it failed to apply the meter constant of 40 in calculating the charges for the electricity used, with the result that the Department of Conservation paid claimant $147.21 instead of $3,020.50. Before the error could be corrected, the appropriation for payment of such charges had lapsed. When the charge occurred, the unexpended balance in the appropriation from which payment could have been made was in the amount of $2,634.00. No showing is made that this claim falls within the exception under which an obligation incurred in excess of the amount appropriated for the purpose may be valid. Ferguus vs. Brady, 277 Ill. 272.
Award is therefore entered in favor of the claimant in the sum of $2,634.00.