Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Lapsed Appropriation
Download PDF

Illinois Bell Telephone Company v. State of Illinois

26 Ill. Ct. Cl. 110 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1967-04-20 No. 5351
Disposition: (No. 5351-Claimant awarded $35,428.72.) Award: $35,428.72
Cite as: Illinois Bell Telephone Company v. State of Illinois, 26 Ill. Ct. Cl. 110 (1967)
Lapsed Appropriation 26 awarded 1960s Illinois Bell Telephone Company v. State of Illinois 26 Ill. Ct. Cl. 110 1967-04-20 (No. 5351-Claimant awarded $35,428.72.) /opinions/v26-p0151-1/

ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, A Corporation, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought $35,428.72 for telephone services rendered to state departments. The court found the contract properly entered, services performed, charges proper, funds available, and appropriation lapsed, and awarded the full amount.

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, opinion filed February 24, 1966

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 ayailable 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.

Claimant, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, a Corporation, filed its complaint in the Court of Claims in which it seeks judgment of $35,428.72, representing charges for telephone services rendered up to June 30, 1965 to various departments of the State of Illinois pursuant to tariff rules and regulations of the Illinois Commerce Commission, which form a contract between the Telephone Company and the State of Illinois.

A Departmental Report was filed, which stated: “The debt is fair and just, is due and owing, and should be paid to the Company for the services rendered.”

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

“The report of the Office of the Secretary of State to the Illinois Attorney General, dated April 7, 1967, ( a copy of which is attached hereto, marked exhibit A, and by this reference incorporated herein, and made a part hereof) shall be admitted into evidence in this proceeding without objection by either party.

“No other oral or written evidence will be introduced by either party.

“The Comissioner to whom this case has been assigned and the Court may make and file their reports, recommendations, orders and decisions based upon the pleadings heretofore filed, and the evidence herein stipulated.

“Neither party objects to the entry of an order in favor of claimant and against respondent in the sum of $36,428.72.

“Neither party desires to file briefs in this proceeding.

“Both parties waive notice of any hearing, and agree that the aforesaid order may be entered without either party being present.”

This Court has repeatedly held that, where a contract has been (1) properly entered into; ( 2 ) services [*112] 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 elaim could have been paid had lapsed, it would enter an award for the amount due. S t . Mary’s Hospital, Decatzcr, of the Hospital Sisters of the Third Order of Xt. Francis, an Illixois Corporation vs. State of Illinois, case No. 5261, opinion filed February 24, 1966. It appears that all qualifications for an award have been met in the instant case.

Claimant, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, a Corporation, is, therefore, hereby awarded the sum of $35,428.72.

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.