Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Lapsed Appropriation
Download PDF

Keuiteland Esser Company v. State of Illinois

26 Ill. Ct. Cl. 81 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1967-02-17 No. 5339
Disposition: (No. 5339-Claimant awarded $2,696.16.) Award: $2,696.16 Agency: Department of Public Works and Buildings
Cite as: Keuiteland Esser Company v. State of Illinois, 26 Ill. Ct. Cl. 81 (1967)
Lapsed Appropriation 26 awarded 1960s Keuiteland Esser Company v. State of Illinois 26 Ill. Ct. Cl. 81 1967-02-17 (No. 5339-Claimant awarded $2,696.16.) /opinions/v26-p0122-1/

KEUITELand ESSER COMPANY, A Corporation, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought payment for materials furnished to the Department of Public Works and Buildings. The court awarded the full amount because the contract was properly entered into, services were satisfactory, funds were available at the time, and the appropriation had lapsed.

Claim type: Lapsed Appropriation

Cases cited: St. Mary's Hospital, Decatur, of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, An Illinois Corporation vs. State of Illinois, Case No. 5261

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

Headnotes

  1. CONTRACTS-lapsed appropriation. Where contract has been properly entered into, all services satisfactorily performed, proper charges made therefor, adequate funds were available at the time the contract was executed, and the appropriation from which such claim could and would have been paid had lapsed, an award will be made.

[*82] Claimant, Keuffel and Esser Company, a Corporation, filed its complaint in the Court of Claims in which it seeks payment of the sum of $2,696.16 for materials furnished to the Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State of Illinois.

A written stipulation was entered into by claimant and respondent, which states as follows:

“That the claimant is a New Jersey Corporzrtion, qualified to do business in the State of Illinois, and that at the special instance and request of the Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State of Illinois had supplied respondent with tapes, tape refills, chains, surveying and engineering equipment, as indicated in exhibits Nos. 1 through 10, attached to the complaint filed herein.

“That the customary and usual charge for said merchandise was equivalent to the sum set forth in the invoice, namely, $2,696.16.

“That the vouchers for said merchandise were not presented or processed until after September, 1965, when the 73rd biennium appropriations had lapsed.

“That no assignment or transfer of this claim has been made.

“That there is rightfully due to claimant the sum of $2,696.16.

“That upon the foregoing agreed case filed herein, the Court shall decide thereon, and render judgment herein according to the rights of the parties in the same manner as if the facts aforesaid were proved upon the trial of said issue.”

This Court has repeatedly held that, where a contract has been (1) properly entered into; (2) services satisfactorily performed, and materials furnished in accordance with such contract ; (3) proper charges made therefor; (4)adequate funds were available at the time the contracts were entered into; and, ( 5 ) the appropriation for the biennium from which such claim could have been paid had lapsed, it would enter an award for the amount due. St. Mary’s Hospital, Decatur, of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, An Illinois Corporation vs. State of Illinois, Case No. 5261, [*83] opinion filed February 24, 1966. It appears that all qualifications for an award have been met in the instant case.

Claimant, Keuffel and Esser Company, a Corporation, is, therefore, hereby awarded the sum of $2,696.16.

Official volume 26 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion between: January 10, 1967–June 20, 1969)  ·  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.