THOMAS N. O FILLINOIS, SKINNER, Claimant, v. STATJE Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought $400 in back pay for services as custodian, alleging he was underpaid. The court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction because claimant had an adequate remedy in courts of general jurisdiction and failed to pursue it.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- GEORGEE”. BARRETT, Attorney General; ROBERT V. OSTROM,Assistant Attorney General, f o r respondent.
- COURTS OF GENERAL JnmsDIcmori-remedy in- failure of claimant t o avail self of- bars award. The Court of Claims was created to provide I a remedy to persons where no other adequate remedy existed, and I where a full remedy exists, or existed, i n a Court of general jurisdiction . and claimant failed to avail himself thereof, the Court of Claims is without jurisdiction t o make award on claim filed therein. I
- I
I
This claim was filed May 17, 1943. ! Claimant alleges that he was employed by the State I of Illinois as custodian at Camp Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, from July 1, 1939, to October, 1940. That he was entitled to receive as compensation for such services the sum of $150.00 per month in accordance with an appropriation for said office,by virtue of House Bill No. 254 appioved July 1, 1939. Claimant further alleges that he received only the sum of $125.00 per month which payment was protested and that claimant made demand upon the respondent for additional payment but received no payment on account of such claim. Claimant seeks an award in the sum of $400.00 being the difference between the amount appropriated for this position and the amount received by claimant.
The record consists of the complaint, motion to dismiss by respondent and statement, brief and argument on behalf of claimant and respondent.
Respondent contends that the claim should be dismissed for the reason that if claimant was legally entitlec: to recover he had a remedy in the courts of general jurisdiction. . I
I
Claimant had a right to receive the full sum appro- I priated for the position which he held. Adequate reme- I dies existed in courts of general jurisdiction for the . I enforcement of this right. Claimant chose to remain in the position, accept and cash the vouchers issued to him and took no action for the enforcement of his rights.
[*94] We have consistently held that the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to entertain a. claim where a full remedy exists or existed in a court of general jnris. diction. The Court of Claims'was created to provide a remedy to persons where no other adequate remedy existed. Claimant having failed to pursue his proper remedy he cannot now maintain his claim here. The motion of the Attorney General to disidss this claim must be allowed.
Having concluded that we are without jurisdiction in this claim it becomes unnecessary to discuss other points raised by respective counsel.
The motion to dismiss is allowed and the claim dismissed.