Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

Montgomery County Sheriff's Office v. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections

30 Ill. Ct. Cl. 455 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1975-04-02 No. 74-CC-879
Disposition: (No. 74-CC-879-Claimant awarded $158.20.) Award: $158.20 Agency: Department of Corrections
Cite as: Montgomery County Sheriff's Office v. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, 30 Ill. Ct. Cl. 455 (1975)
General Court of Claims 30 awarded 1970s Montgomery County Sheriff's Office v. State of Illinois, Department of Corrections 30 Ill. Ct. Cl. 455 1975-04-02 (No. 74-CC-879-Claimant awarded $158.20.) /opinions/v30-p0484-1/

MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHERIFF'SOFFICE, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

Case summary

The Sheriff's Office claimed $158.20 for fees for conveying prisoners to the penitentiary, which the Department of Corrections failed to pay because appropriated funds had lapsed. The court held that the two-year statute of limitations did not bar the claim, as the cause of action accrued only upon the Department's denial letter of June 17, 1974, and awarded the full amount.

Claim type: Lapsed Appropriation

Statutes cited: 822 of the Court of Claims Act

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

Headnotes

  1. CONTRACTS - reimbursement to County. In allowing a claim to reimburse the County for Sheriffs fees, the 2-year statute of limitations will not apply where the County filed a claim within 7 days after being notified that the funds appropriated for such payment had lapsed.

This claim, filed on June 24, 1974, seeks payment of the sum of $158.20 for Sheriff's fees allowed by law for conveying the following 4 persons to the penitentiary on the dates stated below:

August 6, 1968

Danny Robinson 35210

to I.S.P., Menard Branch 113 miles at 35 cents per mile .......................... $39.55

July 1, 1968

John E. Gordon 35121

to I.S.P., Menard Branch 113 miles at 35 cents per mile .......................... $39.55

August 29, 1969

Norman Garwood 36194 and

Roger Gruen 36193

to I.S.P., Menard Branch 113 miles at 35 cents per mile x 2 ...................... $79.10 Total ........................................................... $158.20 Respondent's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the aforesaid services were performed more than two years before the claim was filed will be denied.

The court is of the opinion that the 2-year statute of [*456] limitations on which respondent relies, as stated in 822 of the Court of Claims Act, should not apply to this claim under either of the following theories: (a) The services were rendered by the sheriff under an implied contract imposed by law, or (b) the cause of action did not accrue until the claimant received a letter from the Department of Corrections dated June 17, 1974, which reads in pertinent part as follows:

“We regret that these vouchers did not reach us in time to be scheduled for payment from our appropriations for fiscal years 1969 and 1970. We are prohibited, by law, from paying these charges from our current appropriations.

The proper way for you to request payment is by presenting a claim to the Illinois Court of Claims” We accept claimant’s statement that, “Any delay in filing the claim herein has been the direct result of a delay of the said Department of Corrections in either allowing or disallowing said claim, and that this claim was filed within seven days after the denial of the claim by the Department of Corrections.”

It is apparent that this claim was not approved by the Department only because funds appropriated for such payment had lapsed.

The claim will be allowed. The claimant, Montgomery County sheriff, is hereby awarded the sum of $158.20 as the fees allowed by law for conveying prisoners.

Official volume 30 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion between: July 1, 1974–June 30, 1975)  ·  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.