Volume 2 — Illinois Court of Claims Reports

<p>1. License Fee — payment under void statute. The Act of April 11, 1899, requiring persons desiring to operate a private employment agency to obtain a license from the Secretary of State is unconstitutional (Mathews v. People, 202 Ill., 389), and fees paid involuntarily under such statute may be recovered.</p> <p>2. Voluntary Payment — no recovery. Money paid into the State treasury voluntarily may not he recovered back.</p> <p>3. Dubess — money paid under. Money paid into the State treasury under duress may be recovered back.</p> <p>4. Same — what constitutes. Prosecution to enforce collections with threatened arrest constitutes compulsion and duress.</p>

<p>1. Pbactice — failure to comply with rules. Failure upon the part of claimant to take evidence and file abstracts and briefs as required by statute and by the rules will support a motion by the Attorney General to dismiss the claim.</p> <p>2. Same — when Court will not pass on claim. The Court will not pass upon a claim merely from a verified declaration or statement.</p>

<p>Military Service — when award will be made for injuries received in. Claimant served the State prior to his muster into the service of the United States, and following the case of Krueger v. State, 1 Court of Claims Rep., 336, is entitled to an award.</p>

<p>1. License Fee — payment under void statute. Claimant paid a fee to obtain, a license to operate a private employment agency under the Act of April 11, 1899, (Session Laws 1899, pp. 268-271), but not under compulsion and duress. The Act was later held to be unconstitutional in the case of Mathews v. People, 202 Ill., 389. Held, that claimant is not entitled to an award.</p> <p>2. Illegal Tax — when may not be recovered. Mere payment of an illegal tax, under apprehension that the authorities may proceed with its collection, is not sufficient to entitle a person to recover the same back. (Yates v. Boyal Insurance Co., 200 Ill., 202.)</p>

<p>License Fee — Adams & Tillotson v. State ante followed. This claim is governed by the decision o£ the Court in Adams & Tillotson v. State, supra.</p>

<p>1. Non-liability of State — what does not constitute claim against the State. The basis of this claim, as submitted and contended for by claimant is, that the Lincoln Park Board, through its employees, was guilty of negligence in not providing claimant, a painter, with reasonably safe appliances to work upon, and in not inspecting and testing such appliances; that the members of such board were officers and agents of the State, and that the State is therefore liable. Held, that no liability attached.</p> <p>2. Jubisdiction — class of claims Court may pass upon. Claimant cites sec. 3 of the Act of 1903, which” provides that, “and it shall be the duty of said Court to hear and determine * * * all other unadjusted claims of whatsoever nature or character against the State of Illinois,” as showing that the Court of Claims has jurisdiction to allow claims of this class.</p> <p>3. Same — creation of Commission and Court did not increase State’s liability. In the establishment of the Commission of Claims and the present Court of Claims, it was not the intention of the legislature to create a new class of claims against the State, but it was to provide a tribunal in which claims against the State, which civilized governments have always recognized, might be determined.</p> <p>4. Award — what must be shown to justify. In order to justify the allowance of a claim, the facts must show either a legal or equitable claim against the State.</p> <p>5. Respondeat Supebiob — doctrine of not applicable to the State. The State is not responsible for the misfeasance, wrongs, negligence or omissions of duty of its officers, agents or servants, for it does not guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or agents, whom it employs.</p>

<p>License Fee — Adams & Tillotson v. State ante followed. This claim is governed by the decision of the Court in Adams & Tillotson v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability of State — Henke v. State ante followed. The law as announced in Henke v. State, supra, applies to this claim.</p>

<p>1. Non-liability op State — what does not constitute claim against the State. Claimant, while employed at his duties in Lincoln Park, and without fault on his part, was struck upon the head with a bale of straw thrown from a barn by a co-employee. Held, that the State is not liable.</p> <p>2. Respondeat Supebiob — doctrine of not applicable to State. The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to the State, and the State is not liable for the misfeasance, torts, wrongs, negligence or omissions of duty of its officers or agents. (Henlce v. State, supra, cited by Court.)</p>

<p>Pbactice — rules of — failure to observe. Where claimant has not filed either proofs, abstracts or briefs, as required by the rules of the Court of Claims, the Court will dismiss the claim upon motion of the Attorney General.</p>

<p>Practice — rules of — failure to observe. Failure on the part of claimant to file proofs, abstracts and briefs, as required by the rules, will support a motion by the Attorney General to dismiss.</p>

<p>1. Non-liability of State — when liability does not attach. Claimant was injured in the stone guarry while employed as a keeper at the Southern Illinois Penitentiary. Held, that no liability against the State attached.</p> <p>2. Respondeat Superior — doctrine of not applicable to State The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to the State, and the State is,not liable for the negligence of its officers, employees or agents.</p>

<p>License Pee — paid under protest — may be recovered — when. Illegal fees paid into the State treasury under protest, by compulsion or duress may be recovered.</p>

<p>License Pee — when may he recovered. Claimant paid a fee to obtain a license to operate a private employment agency under the Act of April 11, 1899 (Session Laws 1899, pp. 268-271), under compulsion and duress. The Supreme Court of this State having declared said Act unconstitutional {Mathews v. People, 202 Ill., 389), claimant is entitled to a return of the fee so paid.</p>

<p>1. State — Contracts—appropriation must be available for. In order for a State board to make a valid contract for the performance of services, it must have an appropriation available to pay for the same.</p> <p>2. Recovery — when none may be had. Claimant did certain dredging in an outlet of Spring Lake, in Tazewell County, which lake and its outlet were under the control of the Canal Commissioners. The commissioners did not authorize the work. One of its members advised claimant that the board had no appropriation available, the appropriation by the General Assembly having been held invalid (Burke v. Snively, 208 Ill., 328). Held, that no liability attached against the State to pay for the dredging.</p> <p>3. Spring Lake — navigable when. Spring Lake was navigable and had a natural outlet into the Illinois River until 1877, when the outlet was obstructed by the State by the construction of Copperas Creek Lock. This artificial outlet having become obstructed was dredged by the Canal Commissioners in 1890 and 1895, by authority of the General Assembly.</p> <p>4. Jurisdiction — class of claims Court may allow. The Court of Claims is vested with authority to allow legal claims only.</p>

<p>Muitart Service — when award will be made. Claimant enlisted in the Illinois National Guard and was called by the Governor to rendezvous at Springfield for service in the Spanish-American War, which he did. Upon a call of the President of the United States, claimant’s company was mustered into the United States service, but as claimant’s company had more members than the United States Army regulations authorized, he was rejected. The General Assembly having made an appropriation to pay such enlisted men (Session Laws 1901, p. 61), an award is accordingly made.</p>

<p>License Fee — payment under void statute. Claimant paid a fee to obtain a license to operate a private employment agency under the Act of April 11, 1899, (Session Laws 1899, pp. 268-271), under threat of arrest which amounted to duress. The Act being later declared unconstitutional (Mathews v. People, 202 Ill., 389), he is entitled to a return of the fee so paid.</p>

<p>License Fee — Di Oosola v. State ante followed. This claim is similar to that of Di Oosola v. State, supra, and the law governing the allowance of that claim applies to this claim.</p>

<p>License Pee — Di Gosola v. State ante followed. This claim is similar to that of Di Gosola v. State, supra, and the law governing the allowance of that claim applies to this claim.</p>

<p>License Fee — Di Cosola v. State ante followed. This case is controlled by the decision of the Court in the ease of Michaele Di Cosola v. State of Illinois, supra.</p>

<p>Líense Pee — Di Gosola v. State ante followed. This case is controlled hy the decision of the Court in the case of Michaele Di Gosola v. State of Illinois, supra.</p>

<p>License Fee — Di Cosola v. State ante followed. This claim is similar to that of Di Cosola v. State, supra, and- the law governing the allowance of that claim applies to this claim;</p>

<p>License Pee — Di Gosola v. State - ante followed. This claim is similar to that of Di Gosola v. State, supra, and the law governing the allowance of that claim applies to this claim.</p>

<p>License Pee — Di Cosola v. State ante followed. This case is controlled by the decision of the Court in the case of Di Cosola v. State, supra.</p>

<p>1. Military Service — when award will be made. Where a member of the National Guard, while in the performance of his duties under the command of the Commander-in-Chief is injured, the Court of Claims will make an award.</p> <p>2. Damages — for loss of thumb. Where the injury consists in the loss of a thumb, an award of six hundred ($600.00) dollars was allowed.</p>

<p>1. Insurance — statute with reference to foreign life companies. This is a claim to recover certain moneys paid to the State of Illinois by claimant, upon premiums collected by it on life insurance policies in this State during the years 1902-1903 and is based upon sec. 200, chap. 73, Hurd’s Rev. Stat., relating to Life Insurance, which provides that,</p> <p>“whenever the existing or future laws of any other state of the United States shall require of life insurance companies, incorporated by or organized under the laws of this State and having agencies in such other state, * * * any payment for taxes, fines, * * * license fees or otherwise, greater than the amount required for such purposes from similar companies of other states, by the then existing laws of this State, then and in every such case, all life insurance companies of such states, * * * shall be and are hereby required * * * to pay to the Auditor, for taxes, fines, * * * license fees or any other obligation, an amount equal to the amount of such charges and payments imposed by the laws of such other state upon the companies of this State * *</p> <p>2. Retroactive Operation oe Statute — construction by State official. The New York Statute provided that all life insurance companies,</p> <p>“incorporated, organized or formed under, by or pursuant to the laws of any other state of the United States and doing business” in the State of New York, as well as all domestic companies, should pay</p> <p>“an annual state tax for the privilege of exercising corporate franchises or for carrying on business in their corporate or organized capacity within this State, equal to one per cent on the gross amount of premiums received during the preceding calendar year for business done,”</p> <p>in that state. The Comptroller of Insurance of New York construed the above statute to the effect that the tax was to be levied on all premiums received during the year, irrespective of whether the premiums were collected on policies issued before or after the act went into effect. The Superintendent of Insurance of Illinois followed the construction placed upon said statute by the Comptroller of Insurance of New York, and held that the claimant should pay to the State of Illinois a one per cent tax upon premiums received by claimant in this State, and thereupon claimant paid said tax. Later the Court of Appeals of New York, in the case of People ex rel., Provident Savings Life Assurance Society v. Miller, State Comptroller, 179 N. Y., 227, held, that as to domestic corporations, the tax was limited to premiums collected on policies issued subsequent to the Act going into effect. Claimant, after the above decision had been rendered, contended that the payments were illegal and should be refunded.</p> <p>3. Mistake op Law — defined. A mistake of law is an erroneous conclusion as to the legal effect of known facts. The construction of words is a matter of law. (Purvines v. Harrison, 151 Ill., 219.) A mistake of law is one which occurs when a person is truly acquainted with the existence or non-existence of facts, but comes to an erroneous conclusion as to their legal effect. (30 Cyc., 1315.)</p> <p>4. Same — voluntary payment under — no recovery. The tax having been paid voluntarily, under a mistake of law, and not under a mistake of fact, no recovery may be had. (Yates v. Boyal Insurance Co., 200 Ill., 202; Elston v. City of Chicago, 40 Ill., 514; People v. Miner, 46 Ill., 374; Swanston v. I jams, 63 Ill., 165; Otis v. People, 196 Ill., 542; Walser v. Board of Education, 160 Ill., 272.)</p> <p>5. Same — voluntary payment under unconstitutional statute — no recovery. Where a payment is made voluntarily under a statute which is later held to be unconstitutional, there can be no recovery. (Yates v. Boyal Insurance Co., supra.)</p> <p>6. Same — payment under mistaken belief — no recovery. Payment of money into the treasury of this State under the belief that there was then in existence a particular statute of another state which exacted a tax similar to the statute of this State, is not a mistake of fact; neither is a mistake as to a foreign law a mistake of fact.</p> <p>7. Presumption — of law. Every person is presumed to know the law in the country where he dwells.</p> <p>8. Corporation — situs of. A corporation is a citizen, resident and inhabitant of the state by or under which it was created and of that state only, even though it may be doing business in another state and have part or all of its property there.</p> <p>9. Foreign Law — defined. A foreign law is a law foreign to the residence of the individual making the mistake. (Marshall v. Coleman, 187 Ill., 556.)</p> <p>10. Reciprocal Law — when operative. The reciprocal law of Illinois has no force or effect until some other state has passed a law taxing Illinois corporations, and then it becomes effective to tax the companies of such other state in the same manner in this State.</p> <p>11. Judicial Notice — taken of what. Courts take judicial notice of the construction placed upon a law of a sister state by the courts of that state. (HcDeed v. McDeed, 67 Ill., 545; Hoes v. Van Alstyne, 20 Ill., 202.)</p> <p>12. Jurisdiction — class of claims Court may allow. Claimant finally contends that on equitable principles it is entitled to recover. The allowance of legal and equitable claims is governed by legal principles. Equity follows the law.</p>

<p>1. Military Service — when recovery may be had. Claimant was injured while in performance of his duties in the military service of the State at Camp Lincoln. Held, that claimant is entitled to an award for loss of time.</p> <p>2. Expenses — what are proper. Expense of a private room in a hospital is a reasonable expense to be included in the claim.</p> <p>3. Same — what are not proper. Expenses of a special diet, fruit, flowers, laundry and clothing are not proper items of expense to be included in the claim.</p> <p>4. Damages — what may be considered in measuring. Impaired health, earning capacity, mental worry, anguish and permanent disfigurement of body may be considered in determining the amount of an award.</p>

<p>1. Pbactice — statute. The Court of Claims is required to hear claims according to its rules and established practice and determine the same according to. the principles of equity and justice.</p> <p>2. Same — rules of. Every claimant, in addition to stating the facts upon which his claim is based, must state, first: Whether the same has ever been presented to any State department or State officer, and, if so, when, and to what department or officer and what action has been taken thereon; second: Whether the claim has been assigned or not, and, if assigned, to whom and the date of such assignment, and if other persons are interested in the claim, their names must be stated.</p>

<p>Insurance — Reciprocal Statute — Home Life Insurance Company v. State ante followed. This claim is similar to all intents and purposes as the claim of Home Life Insurance Company of New York v. State, supra, and the law as announced by the Court in the opinion there filed applies to and governs the decision of this claim.</p>

<p>Res Adjtjdicata — what constitutes. Where a claim has been heard, either before the Commission of Claims or its successor, the Court of Claims, and a decision rendered, such decision will be final, unless a rehearing is applied for and granted and the decision changed.</p>

<p>1. Military Service — claim for death while in. This claim was originally brought by James Reddick, administrator of the estate of Joseph Pimes, deceased, on his own • behalf and on behalf of the mother of said deceased. Reddick having died, John F. Devine was appointed in his place, and the brothers of said Joseph Pimes, deceased, were added as claimants.</p> <p>2. Naval Reserves — commanding officer. The captain of the Naval Reserves is its commanding officer under the Governor.</p> <p>3. Rules and Regulations — who makes. The statutes authorize the Commander-in-Chief to make rules and regulations for the government of the military and naval forces of the State, which rules and regulations shall conform as nearly as practicable to the regulations of the Army and Navy of the United States.</p> <p>4. Financial Held or Assistance — defined. “Financial help or assistance,” as used in section 4 of article 11 of the Military and Naval Code of 1903, does not mean compensatory damages. It means a voluntary contribution on the part of the State in the nature of a pension.</p> <p>6. Claims — how brought. Claims of this character may be brought either in the name of the legal heirs directly, or in the name of the administrator for the use of the legal heirs. {'Witte v. State, 1 Ct. of Cl. Rep., 249.)</p>

<p>Military Service — Reddick, adrar, est. Pimes, v. State ante followed. This claim is based upon, the same state of facts as the claim of Reddick, admr., est. of Pimes, dec’d., v. State, supra, and the law as announced by the Court in the decision of that claim applies to this claim.</p>

<p>1. Military Service — Reddick, admr. est. Pimes, v. State ante followed. This claim is based upon the same state of facts as the claim of Reddick, admr. est. of Pimes, dec’d., v. State, supra, and the law as announced by the Court in the decision of that claim applies to this claim.</p> <p>2. Oath — failure to take — no defense. The State also makes the additional defense to this claim to the effect that the deceased had not taken the prescribed oath and consequently was not a member of the Naval Reserves. Held, under the facts, that deceased was a member.</p> <p>3. Same — facts which will save taking oath. Where an applicant for military service makes due application, appears for service and subjects himself to orders, he will not be heard to say, that he is not in the service. (Poye v. Curtis, 38 Mass., 330; Hammond v. Dunbar, 41 Mass., 172.)</p> <p>4. Fraud — only will protect State. Nor can the State, after it has assumed authority over an applicant, and accepted his services, be heard to say that such applicant was not legally in the service, unless such applicant got into the service by fraud.</p>

<p>Military Service — Reddick,, admr. est. Pimes, v. State ante followed. This claim is based upon the same state of facts as the claim of Reddick, admr. est. of Pimes, dec’d., v. State, supra, and the law as announced by the Court in the decision of that claim applies to this claim.</p>

<p>Military Service — Reddick, admr. est. Pimes v. State ante followed. This claim is based upon the same state of facts as the claim of Reddick, admr. est. of Pimes, dee’d., v. State, supra, and the law as announced by the Court in the decision of that claim applies to this claim.</p>

<p>1. Damages — for loss of hay crop. Claimant’s crop of hay was damaged by the overflow of water caused by placing water-gates in a brook adjacent to the State School for the Deaf and Dumb at Jacksonville, Illinois. Held, that claimant is entitled to an award covering the amount of his damages.</p> <p>2. Ripabian Rights — owner of land has. The owner of land over which a stream flows has a usufruct in the water while it passes, but cannot arrest its flow to the damage of others. (Druley v. Adams, 102 Ill., 177; Batavia Mfg. Oo. v. Newton Wagon Co., 91 Ill., 230.)</p>

<p>Military Service — award for injuries while in. Where a member of the Naval Reserve is injured while in the performance of his duties under orders of the Commander-in-Chief, he may have a claim in this Court and his legal heirs may have a claim, in case he be killed.</p>

<p>Military Service — award for injuries while in. Claimant, a member of the Illinois National Guard, while in camp at Camp Lincoln and while in the performance of his duties, was injured by being kicked by a horse. Held, that claimant is entitled to an award on account of such injury sustained and loss of time occasioned thereby.</p>

<p>1. Non-liability of State — what does not constitute claim against the State. In this claim, complainant’s intestate was run over in Lincoln Park by an automobile, which had been commandered by one of the park policemen. Held, that no recovery could he had.</p> <p>2. Respondeat Superior — doctrine of not applicable to State. Even though the cause of the accident, which resulted in the death of claimant’s intestate, was the negligence of the park policeman, still there is no liability on the part of the State therefor in view of the well established rule, that the State is not liable for the torts of its officers, agents, servants or employees.</p>

<p>1. Contracts — proposals. Where a proposal is submitted by a contractor and the same accepted, it is incumbent. upon the contractor, in a suit to recover therefor, to show that the article was furnished in accordance with the proposal.</p> <p>2. Same — retention of article. When the contract Axes the time within which the purchaser may reject the article, the retention of the same for a longer period will amount to an acceptance of the same.</p> <p>. 3. Same — interpretation. Where there is doubt or uncertainty as to the proper construction to be given the terms of a contract, recourse may be had to the interpretation the parties have put upon it.</p>

<p>1. Corporations — license fees.</p> <p>“That all companies and corporations hereafter organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, before they shall be permitted to file any papers in the office of the Secretary of State, or make any application for the purpose of becoming incorporated, shall pay to him fees as follows: All companies having a capital stock of * * * $5,000.00, shall pay the sum of $50.00.”</p> <p>Hurd’s Rev. Stat., 1909, chap. 53, par. 10a.</p> <p>2. License Fee — when no recovery of. Where an application for a license to open books for subscription to the capital stock of a corporation is made, accompanied by the license fee, and the license issued, no refund of the fee or any part thereof can be made, no matter whether the books were opened or not, or whether the incorporation was completed or not.</p> <p>3. Same — retention by State. The retention of the license fee by the Secretary of State is in no way conditional upon the Commissioners taking any further steps.</p>

<p>1. Inheritance Tax — stocks and bonds of foreign corporations not subject to. In this claim the inheritance tax was assessed and fixed by the county judge of Cook County on all of the property of deceased, which included stocks and bonds of foreign corporations, which tax was paid by the executrix under protest. An appeal was prayed by the executrix to the county court, which court reduced the tax, eliminating from the appraisement the stocks and bonds of foreign corporations. An appeal was then prayed by the People to the Supreme Court, which Court affirmed the decision of the county court, as to the amount of the tax to be paid by the beneficiaries, but reversed that part which ordered the county treasurer to repay the sum of §497.00. (People v. Griffith, 245 Ill., p. 532.)</p> <p>2. Statute — section 10 construed. Sec. 10 of the inheritance tax law provides that when any amount of inheritance tax “shall have been paid erroneously to the State Treasurer, it shall be lawful for him on satisfactory proof rendered to him by said county treasurer of said erroneous payments, to refund and pay to the executor, administrator or trustee, person or persons who have paid any such tax in error the amount of such tax so paid, provided, that all applications for the repayment of said tax shall be made within two years from the date of said payment.” In construing this section the Supreme Court in the Griffith case, supra, held that it was not the intention to authorize county treasurers to repay tax erroneously paid to them, but that the State Treasurer, upon proper proof, is to refund such amounts.</p> <p>3. Voluntary Payment of Illegal Tax — may not be recovered. It is a well established principle of law in this State, that there can be no recovery of taxes erroneously or illegally paid, unless the same were paid under duress or compulsion. (Yates v. Insurance Co., 200 Ill., 202.)</p> <p>4. Paid Under Protest — may be recovered. In this claim the executrix endorsed on the check “paid under protest” and since simple payment under protest would not amount to duress or compulsion, claimant, to recover, must recover, if at all, under section 10.</p> <p>5. Statute of Limitations — does not run pending appeal. The requirement of section 10, that application for repayment must he made within two years from the date of payment, does not apply where an appeal is pending.</p>

<p>1. Respondeat Superior — doctrine of not applicable to State. The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to the State.</p> <p>■ 2. Same — State does not act as guarantor of its servants. The State does not undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of its officers, servants, employees, appointees or agents, and the State is not liable for injuries resulting from acts or neglects of such officers, servants, employees, appointees or agents.</p> <p>3. Jurisdiction — when Court may allow claim. No power is vested in this Court to allow a claim unless the facts show a legal liability.</p>

<p>1. License Fee — when no recovery of. If a license to incorporate under the laws of this State be applied for and issued, hut no further steps be taken to complete the incorporation, the applicants for the license may not have refunded to them the incorporation fee.</p> <p>2. Same — retention by State. The retentio i of the fee by the Secretary of State is in no way conditional upon the completion of the incorporation.</p> <p>3. Same — not divisible. The incorporation fee is indivisible.</p>

<p>1. Contracts — no recovery under — when. Claimant seeks to recover fifty cents for each ton of coal delivered at the Power House, in addition to the contract price. Held, that under the constitution, statutes, advertisement, proposal and contract, claimant cannot recover.</p> <p>2. Delivery — elements of: a. The time of delivery; b. The quantity to be delivered; c. The place of delivery.</p> <p>3. Same — place of. If no place of delivery is appointed in the contract, it is the duty of the seller to ascertain from the buyer where he will receive them. (Bean v. Simpson, 16 Me., 40.)</p>

<p>1. Inheritance Tax — refund of — appeal. Claimant, in order to secure a refund of an inheritance tax erroneously fixed by the county judge and paid under protest, should appeal from the order of the judge fixing the tax, to the county court, and obtain a decision in his favor.</p> <p>2. Same — demand. Demand for a refund of the tax should be made on the State and county treasurers.</p>

<p>1. Trespass — damage by National Guard. Claimant’s property, consisting of plants, shrubs, flowers, trees, pipes and plumbing, was damaged by the Illinois National Guard while conducting a sham battle. Held, that claimant is entitled to an award covering the amount of her damages.</p> <p>- 2. Jurisdiction — to hear military claims. Section 3 of the Act creating the Court of Claims provides, that it shall hear and determine all unadjusted and controverted claims against the State arising out of the military power of the State when called into action for the preservation of the public peace or order, or for instruction in camp, etc.</p>

<p>Statute of Limitations — claim must be filed within two years from date of accrual. This statement of claim shows that injuries to claimant were received in 1904, and the claim was not filed with the Auditor of Public Accounts until 1909. Held, that the same is barred by the two year limitation statute.</p>

<p>1. Military Service — defense of member in. Where a member of the National Guard or Naval Reserve is prosecuted by civil or criminal action on account of any act done by such member in the performance of his military duties, the expenses of his defense shall be borne by the State.</p> <p>2. Attorney General — duty to defend. In cases of this character, the Attorney General may defend the suit either personally or by one of his assistants, or, if not, then he shall approve the selection' of an attorney to conduct the defense.</p> <p>3. Same — to approve expenses. Vouchers covering items of expense are to be approved by the Attorney General and paid by the Adjutant General.</p> <p>4. State Affairs — Jiow conducted. Departments of the State government must be conducted upon business lines and each department may adopt reasonable rules and regulations for the proper transaction of the business pertaining to that department.</p>

<p>Militaey Sebvice — when award will be made for injuries received in. Claimant was injured while in the performance of his duties in the military service of the State at Camp Lincoln. Held, that he is entitled to an award in accordance with the provisions of the Military and Naval Code.</p>

<p>1. Respondeat Superior — doctrine of not applicable to State. The doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable to the State.</p> <p>2. Res Adjudicata — effect of refection of claim. If the Court of Claims reject a claim, such rejection concludes the claimant, unless the Court otherwise directs.</p>

<p>1. Practice — claim by minor — how exhibited. Where a minor seeks an award, the claim should be exhibited in the name of the minor by his guardian; if he have a guardian, and if not, then by his next friend.</p> <p>2. Respondeat Superior — doctrine of not applicable to State. The doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable to the State, and the State is not responsible for the torts of its officers, employees or agents.</p> <p>3. Officers — Park Commissioners are. Park Commissioners, appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, are' officers.</p>

<p>1. Inheritance Tax — refund where debts are proven after distribution. Claimant asks á refund of an inheritance tax and bases its claim upon the fact that debts were proven against the estate after the distribution of the legacies, from which the inheritance tax had been deducted, and the legatee was required to refund a portion of the legacy. Held, that claimant is entitled to refund of the tax so erroneously paid.</p> <p>2. Statute — section 8. Section 8 of the inheritance tax law provides, that whenever debts shall be proved against the estate of a decedent after distribution of legacies, from which the tax has been deducted, and the legatee is required to refund any portion of the legacy, a portion of said tax shall be repaid to him by the executor or administrator, if said tax has not been paid into the State or county treasury, or by the county treasurer, if it has been paid into the county treasury. In this claim the money had been paid into the State treasury; hence claimant’s only remedy is resort to the Court of Claims.</p>

<p>1. Respondeat Superior — rule of does not apply to State. The rule of respondeat superior is inapplicable to the State, and the State is not liable for the negligence of its officers and agents.</p> <p>2. Court op Claims — not a bureau of charities. The Court of Claims is not a bureau of charities, but a Court, and must determine all claims in accordance with legal principles.</p> <p>3. Jurisdiction — Act creating Court did not increase liability of State. The law creating the Court of Claims did not undertake to create new liabilities against the State, but merely provided a means by which claims against the State could be heard.</p>

<p>1. Military Service — when award will be made. Claimant, while in the service of the State as a member of the National Guard, was poisoned by coming into contact with poison ivy, and after returning from said encampment was unable to labor for a number of days. Held, that claimant is entitled to recover for time lost.</p> <p>2. Jurisdiction — to hear military claims. The Military Code provides, that where an enlisted man is injured while performing his duty under orders of the Commander-in-Chief, he shall have a claim against the State for financial help or assistance, and the Court of Claims shall act on and adjust the same, as the merits of the case may demand.</p>

<p>Respondeat Stjperiob — doctrine of not applicable to State„ The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to the State. •</p>

<p>Respondeat Superior — doctrine of not applicable to State. The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to the State.</p>

<p>1. Contracts — payment by installments. Claimant contracted ■with the Board of Managers of the Illinois State Reformatory for the installation of a tube cleaning device, and in pursuance thereof installed the same. Payments were to he made in installments. JSfo complaint was made that the device was not satisfactory. After several payments had been made, further payment was refused. Held, that claimant is entitled to an award for the unpaid balance of the contract price.</p> <p>2. Interest — State not liable for. Since the contract did not specifically provide for interest on deferred payments, none will be allowed.</p>

<p>1. Inheritance Tax — when no refund will be made. In this claim ah inheritance tax was paid by the executors, but no appeal was prayed from the order of the county judge fixing the tax to the county court. Held, that claimants were not entitled to an award.</p> <p>2. Same — Stock owned by non-resident. An inheritance tax may properly be assessed upon shares of stock in an Illinois corporation, owned by a non-resident, even though such non-resident has no real estate in this State.</p> <p>3. Same — must appeal to secure refund. It is essential that anyone desiring a refund of an inheritance tax erroneously paid, must first have the tax declared erroneous by some court of this State in accordance with the inheritance tax law.</p> <p>4. Cotjet of Claims — not a court of review. The Court of Claims is not vested with authority to review the action of the county-judge in fixing the inheritance tax. Claimants' remedy was by way of appeal to the county court.</p>

<p>Inheritance Tax — Dodge & Ensign, ex., v. State ante followed. This claim is based upon a similar state of facts as that of Dodge & Ensign, executors, etc., Mary H. Dodge, deceased, v. State, supra, and the law as announced by the Court in the decision of that claim governs this claim.</p>

<p>Inheritance Tax — Dodge & Ensign, ex., v. State ante followed. This claim is based upon a similar state of facts as that of Dodge & Ensign, executors, etc., Mary H. Dodge, deceased, v. State, supra, and the law as announced by the Court in the decision of that claim governs this claim.</p>

<p>Inheritance Tax—Dodge & Ensign, ex., v. State ante followed. This claim is based upon a similar state of facts as that of Dodge & Ensign, executors, etc., Mary R. Dodge, deceased, v. State, supra, and the law as announced by the Court in the decision of that claim governs this claim.</p>

<p>Inheritance Tax — Dodge & Ensign, ex., v. State ante followed. This claim is based upon a similar state of facts as that of Dodge & Ensign, executors, etc., Mary H. Dodge, deceased, v. State, supra, and the law as announced by the Court in the decision of that claim governs this claim.</p>

<p>Inheritance Tax — Dodge & Ensign, ex., v. State ante -followed. This claim is based upon a similar state of facts as that of Dodge & Ensign, executors, etc., Mary H. Dodge, deceased, v. State, supra, and the law as announced by the Court in the decision of that claim governs this claim.</p>

<p>Inheritance Tax—Dodge & Ensign, ex., v. State ante followed. This claim is based upon a similar state of facts as that of Dodge & Ensign, executors, etc., Mary H. Dodge, deceased, v. State, supra, and the law as announced by the Court in the decision of that claim governs this claim.</p>

<p>Inheritance Tax — Dodge & Ensign, ex., v. State ante followed. This claim is based upon, a similar state of facts as that of Dodge & Ensign, executors, etc., Mary H. Dodge, deceased, v. State, supra, and the law as announced by the Court in the decision of that claim governs this claim.</p>

<p>Inheritance Tax — Dodge & Ensign, ex., v. State ante followed. This claim is based upon a similar state of facts as that of Dodge £ Ensign, executors, etc., Mary H. Dodge, deceased, v. State, supra, and the law as announced by the Court in the decision of that claim governs this claim.</p>

<p>Inheritance Tax — Dodge & Ensign, ex., v. State ante followed. This claim is based upon a similar state of facts as that of Dodge & Ensign, executors, etc., Mary H. Dodge, deceased, v. State, supra, and the law as announced by the Court in the decision of that claim governs this claim.</p>

<p>. 1. Inheeitance Tax — to obtain a refund an appeal must be taken. Where an inheritance tax has been fixed by order of the county judge and the time for an appeal to the county court L^.s passed, the county judge cannot afterwards entertain a petition to set aside the order fixing the tax.</p> <p>2. Covet of Claims — will not review another court’s jurisdiction. The Court of Claims will not pass upon the question of another court’s jurisdiction.</p>

<p>1. Inheritance Tax — when no refund will he awarded. Claimant contends that the property was appraised at $4,670.12, whereas it should have been appraised at $1,340.24. No appeal was taken from the order of the county judge fixing the tax. Held, that claimant is not entitled to an award.</p> <p>2. Court op Claims — not a court of review. The Court of Claims does not sit as a court of review, to pass upon the decisions of other courts.</p> <p>3. Order op County Judge — how reviewed. The statute provides for the manner of reviewing the order of the county judge in inheritance tax matters.</p>

<p>1. Inheritance Tax — to secure refund must obtain favorable decision. In order to entitle a claimant to a refund of inheritance taxes erroneously paid into the State treasury, the claimant must have obtained a final decision in his favor in some court.</p> <p>2. Court of Claims- — not a court of review. The Court of Claims does not sit as a court of review to pass upon the decisions of any other court. .</p> <p>3. Order of County Judge — how reviewed. The statute with reference to inheritance taxes provides the manner in which an order of the county judge may he reviewed.</p>

<p>Inheritance Tax — Court will not make award unless appeal is taken and favorable decision obtained. Unless an appeal is prosecuted by a claimant, seeking a refund of an inheritance fax erroneously paid, and a decision obtained in favor of such claimant, this Court will not mate an award for a refund of the tax erroneously paid.</p>

<p>1. Inheritance Tax — when award will be made. Where a final decision has been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction in favor of a claimant seeking a refund of inheritance taxes erroneously paid, this Court will order a refund of the amount erroneously received by the State.</p>

<p>Armories — lease of. Court reviews the evidence and rejects claim.</p>

<p>1. Insurance — foreign fire companies required to pay two per cent. Foreign Fire Insurance Companies are required to pay two per cent of the amount of their gross premiums collected in this State, into the State treasury, less the aggregate amount of fire department and local taxes paid by them.</p> <p>2. Mistake op Fact — money paid under may be recovered. Money paid under a mistake of fact may be recovered, but not so if paid under a misapprehension as to what the law on the subject really is.</p>

<p>1. Negligence — when State liable for. Claimant’s property, located across the street from the stone quarry at the Illinois State Penitentiary, was damaged hy blasting in the quarry. Held, that claimant is entitled to an award on account of such damage to his property.</p> <p>2. Jurisdiction — statute as to this class of claims. In this claim, the Court’s jurisdiction to hear “all claims against the State for taking or damaging private property by the State for public purposes in the construction or for use of any State institution,” is called in question.</p> <p>3. Damages — measure of. Where the injury is permanent, only one recovery may be had, and the measure of damages is the depreciation in value, occasioned and to be occasioned by the maintenance of the nuisance. (C. & E. I. R. R. Co. v. Loeb, 118 Ill., 203), cited by the Court.</p> <p>4. Eminent Domain — compensation for property taken by. Private property cannot be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.</p>

<p>1. Non-liability of State — Sfaie in absence of statute not liable for injuries to those employed by it. Claimant, a student at the University of Illinois, was employed in various positions, and while working in the department of fire protection was injured. Held, that no liability attached.</p> <p>2. Public Policy — of State. The State’s exemption from liability does not find its justification solely from considerations of public policy. (City of Chicago v. Williams, 182 Ill., 135; Minear v. State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill., 549, cited by the Court.)</p> <p>3. Governmental Function — University of Illinois. The State in conducting the University of Illinois exercises a governmental function, and does not conduct a business enterprise.</p> <p>4. Safety Appliance Act — not applicable to State. The Safety Appliance Act has no application to the State in its relations to its employees.</p>

<p>Inheritance Tax — when refund will he awarded. In this claim the inheritance tax was fixed by the county judge of Cook County, and an appeal prayed to the county court, pending which appeal, the tax so fixed was paid under protest, after which the county court reduced the tax as fixed by the county judge. The Court awards claimant the difference between the tax as fixed by the county judge and as reduced by the county court.</p>

<p>Pees and Salaries — sum appropriated limits amount of, in absence of other statute. Claimant acted as clerk for the State Board of Equalization, and worked more than the usual number of hours per day. The statute allows $5.00 per day, and the proof shows he worked 153 days and was allowed $825.00 by an appropriation made by the legislature. Held, that no recovery could be had.</p>

<p>License Fees — only one license required to sell chick and scratch food. Where the manufacturer of chick and scratch food has obtained a license to sell such food in this State, a retailer who buys from such manufacturer, is not required to obtain a license to sell the same.</p>

<p>1. Respondeat Superior — rule of not applicable to State. The rule of respondeat superior does not apply to the State.</p> <p>2. Master and Servant — law of not applicable to State. The law of master and servant Is inapplicable as between the State and one of its employees.</p> <p>3. Governmental Function — operation of Joliet penitentiary is exercise of. The penitentiary at Joliet, is operated by the State as a State institution, and in the operation of the stone quarry at said penitentiary, the State acts in a governmental capacity.</p> <p>4. Practice — Court cannot disregard legal principles. The Court of Claims, in the exercise of the equitable powers of which it is possessed, cannot disregard legal principles.</p>

<p>1. Demurrage — right of railroad company to charge. The law in this State is well established, that a railroad company has a legal right to assess and collect demurrage charges for the detention of its cars. (Schumacher v. C. N. W. Ry. Co., 207 Ill., 199; Woolner Distilling Company v. P. E. Ry. Co., 136 Ill. App., 479.)</p> <p>2. Same — does not depend on statute. The fact that there is no express statute authorizing railroad companies to charge demurrage, will not defeat their claim for the same.</p>

<p>Practice — rule of. A failure on the part of claimant to take evidence, and file abstracts and briefs, as required by the rules of this Court, -will support a motion by the Attorney General to dismiss.</p>

<p>1. Contributory Negligence — when claimant not chargeable with. Where a claimant, who in passing over a bridge has no knowledge of any of its defects, he will not be chargeable with contributory negligence.</p> <p>2. Notice of Defect — what is. An examination of the bridge by an employee of the Illinois and Michigan Canal Commission, after notice of a defect in the bridge, is notice to the State.</p> <p>• 3. Constructive Notice — what constitutes. The evidence in this claim also shows, that the defect in the bridge had existed for such length of time as would constitute constructive notice.</p> <p>4. Municipal Officers — duty as to bridges, etc. A duty is imposed upon municipal officers to use ordinary care in keeping the bridges, culverts, etc., of such municipality in safe condition for public travel, and this involves the anticipation of defects that are the natural and ordinary result of use and climatic influences. (City of LaSalle v. Porterfield, 138 Ill., 114; Sherwin v. City of Aurora, 257 Ill., 458.)</p> <p>5. Acceptance — what will not constitute* The replanking of the bridge by the corporate authorities of the Village of North Utica, following an offer by the Canal Commissioners to turn the bridge over to such authorities, will not amount to an acceptance of such bridge by the corporate authorities of North Utica.</p> <p>6. Governmental Function — Business Enterprise — where State exercises former no liability attaches — but in case of latter liability does attach. Where the State exercises a governmental function only, no liability attaches, whereas, if it is engaged either wholly or partially in a business enterprise, and the exercise of the governmental function cannot be disassociated from the business enterprise, liability attaches.</p> <p>7. Holmes v. State — overruled. The case of Holmes v. State, 1 Court of Claims Rep., 324, overruled.</p> <p>8. State — -maty act how. The State may act in a governmental way along the same lines that an individual may act.</p> <p>9. Same — not a corporation. The State of Illinois is not a corporation in any sense.</p> <p>10. Cities — may be liable when township or school district would not be. A city may be liable in damages in case where a township or school district would not be.</p> <p>11. Same — no liability where it acts governmentally. Where a city exercises a governmental function, no liability in tort attaches.</p> <p>12. Canal Commissionebs — not a corporation — are what? The Canal Commissioners are not a body corporate. Such commissioners and their employees are public servants under the exclusive control of the State, and they derive their powers solely by virtue of the statutes of the State.</p> <p>13. Liability op State — rests on statute. Where the State has assumed liability for injuries to those in its service, such liability is assumed by virtue of some statute of the State.</p> <p>14. Governmental Function — conduct of University of Illinois is, exercise of. The State in conducting the University of Illinois acts in a governmental capacity, and is not liable in tort. (Jones v. State, supra), and the penitentiaries in the manufacture of goods and wares act governmentally, and are not liable in tort. (Taylor v. State, supra). The cases of Minear v. State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill., 549; Hern v. Iowa State Agricultural Society, 91 Ia., 97; Berman v. Minnesota State Board of Agriculture, 93 Minn., 125; Trustees of Illinois Industrial University v. Board of Supervisors of Champaign County, 76 Ill., 184, and Chicago v. Williams, 182 Ill., 135, cited by the Court.</p> <p>15. Jurisdiction — Act creating Court did not increase liability of State. The Act creating this Court did not increase or enlarge the State’s liability.</p> <p>16. State — where stockholder in corporation — liable. Where a State becomes stockholder in a corporation, it divests itself, for the purpose of the business, of its sovereign capacity and liability attaches.</p> <p>17. Respondeat Superior — doctrine of not applicable to State. The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to the State.</p>

<p>Non-liability of State—Morrissey v. State ante followed. This case is controlled by the decision of the Court in the case of Morrissey v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability of States—Morrissey v. State ante followed. This case is controlled hy the decision of the Court in the case of Morrissey v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability of State — Morrissey v. State ante followed. This claim is governed by the decision of the Court in Morrissey v.State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability op State—Morrissey v. State and Farmer v. State ante followed. This case is controlled hy the decisions of the Court in the cases of Morrissey v. State, supra, and Farmer v. State) supra.</p>

<p>Now-liability of State — Morrissey v. State ante followed. This case is controlled by the decision of the Court in the case of Morrissey v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability op State — Morrissey v. State and Farmer v. State ante followed. This claim is governed by the decisions of the Court in the cases of Morrissey v. State, supra, and Farmer v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability on State — Morrissey v. State and Farmer v. State ante followed. This claim is governed by the decisions of the Court in the cases of Morrissey v. State, supra, and Farmer v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability of State — Morrissey v. State and Ackerman v. State ante followed. This claim is governed by the decisions of the Court in cases of Morrissey v. State, supra, and Ackerman v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability of State — Morrissey v. State ante followed. This claim is governed by the decision of the Court in Morrissey v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability of State — Morrissey v. State ante followed. This claim is governed by the decision of the Court in Morrissey v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-tjability of State — Morrissey v. State and Ackerman v. State ante followed. This case is controlled by the decisions of the Court in the cases of Morrissey v. State, supra, and Ackerman v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability of State — Morrissey v. State and Farmer v. State ante followed. This case is controlled hy the decisions of the Court in the cases of Morrissey v. State, supra, and Farmer v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability op State — Morrissey v. State and Farmer v. State ante followed. This case is controlled by the decisions of the Court in the cases of Morrissey v. State, supra, and Farmer v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability of State — Morrissey v. State and Ackerman v. State ante followed. This case is controlled by the decisions of the Court in the cases of Morrissey v. State, supra, and Ackerman v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability op State — Morrissey v. State and Ackerman v. State ante followed. This claim is governed by the decisions of the Court in the cases of Morrissey v. State, supra, and Ackerman v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability of State — Morrissey v. State and Ackerman v. State ante followed. This claim is governed by the decisions of the Court in the cases of Morrissey v. State, supra, and Ackerman v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability of State—Morrissey v. State and Ackerman v. State ante followed. This claim is governed hy the decisions of the Court in the cases of Morrissey v. State, supra, and Ackerman v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Non-liability of State — Morrissey v. State ante followed. This case is controlled by the decision of the Court in the case of Morrissey v. State, supra.</p>

<p>Inheritance Tax — facts showing right to refund. Claimants, in order to secure the transfer of certain shares of stock owned by-decedent, a resident of New York, in the Pullman Company, an Illinois corporation, and to protect the State of Illinois in the collection of an inheritance tax from the estate of decedent, deposited with one of the Chicago banks an amount sufficient to cover said tax. After the fixing of the tax by the county judge, the bank paid the tax as fixed, after which an appeal was prayed to the county court, which court reduced the amount of the tax. Held, that claimants are entitled to a refund of the tax erroneously paid.</p>

<p>1. Statute of Limitations — unliquidated claims — when filed. Unliquidated claims must be filed within two years from the date the cause of action accrues.</p> <p>2. Same — Act of 1847 not repealed. The limitation Act of 1847 has not been repealed.</p> <p>3. Liquidated Claim — defined (Clark v. Button, 69 Ill., 521, 523.)</p>

<p>1. Bailment — law of, where a horse is bailed. Where a horse is hired, the bailee is required to pay the expense of caring for it, use it moderately, and as carefully as a person of common discretion would use his own animal, and supply it with suitable food.</p> <p>2. Same — presumption of negligence. When a horse, in good condition, is placed in the hands of a bailee, and is later returned in damaged condition or not returned at all, an action will lie in favor of.the bailor, and the law in such case will presume negligence on the part of the bailee, and will impose on him the burden of showing that he exercised such care as was required by the bailment. (Funkhouser v. Wagner, 62 Ill., 59; Cumins v. Woods, 44 Ill., 416; Bennett v. O’Brien, 37 Ill., 250.)</p>

<p>Non-liability of State — State not liable for acts of third parties. Where property of claimant is destroyed by the acts of third parties, the State cannot be held liable therefor.</p>

<p>Non-liability of State — State not liable for acts of third parties. The State is not liable to respond in damages to its employees who are injured at the hands of third persons, while in the service of the State.</p>

<p>Contracts — when laic will imply promise on part of State to pay. Where a duty is imposed by law upon an officer, and moneys insufficient in amount are appropriated for the performance of the duty, the officer is justified in performing the duty, and expenses incurred thereby, are a proper charge against the political body choosing such officer.</p>

<p>1. Inheritance Tax — when tax erroneously paid may be recovered. Where the county judge fixes an inheritance tax at a certain amount, which amount is paid, after which an appeal is taken from the decision of the county judge to the county court, which court reverses the decision of the judge fixing the tax, and from which decision of the county court no appeal is taken, a recovery may he had.</p> <p>2. Same — demand necessary. Claimant, in order to recover an inheritance tax erroneously paid, should make demands for the return of the same from the county treasurer and State Treasurer.</p>

<p>Military Service — when award will be made for injuries received in. A member of the Illinois Naval Reserve, who is injured in the service of the State under orders from the Commander-in-Chief, is entitled to an award in the Court of Claims.</p>

<p>1. Non-liability of State — when an award will be refused. Claimant was employed as guard at the Southern Illinois Penitentiary and was injured by reason of the wilful negligence of one of the convicts. Held, that no award should be made.</p> <p>2. Respondeat Superior — doctrine of does not apply to State. The doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable to the State, and the State in the absence of statute is not liable for the negligence of its servants.</p> <p>3. Jurisdiction — Act creating Court did not enlarge State’s liability. The Act creating the Court of Claims did not enlarge the liability of the State. (O’Donnell v. State, 1 C. of C. R., 255;Schmidt v. State, 1 C. of C. R., 76, cited by the Court.)</p> <p>4. Same- — when may allow claim. The legislature is vested with the discretion to make allowances for the relief of individuals, whether a legal or equitable liability attaches or not, but the Court of Claims may only make an award when a legal or equitable liability is shown.</p> <p>5. Governmental Function — State in conducting penitentiary exercises. The State in conducting the Southern Illinois Penitentiary exercises a governmental function.</p>

<p>1. Statute of Limitations — unliquidated claims must be filed within two years from accrual. “* * * Hereafter all unliquidated claims against the State shall be proved up and filed as above, within two years from the time such claim may have arisen; and any claim not presented and proved up as above and filed, shall be forever barred from payment by the State.” Hurd’s Rev. Stat., 1913, chap. 83, par. 31, p. 1578.</p> <p>2. Same — exceptions to general statute. “If the person entitled to bring an action, mentioned in the nine preceding sections, is, at the time of the cause of action accrued, within the age of twenty-one years, or if a female, within the age of eighteen years, or insane, or imprisoned on a criminal charge, he or she may bring the action within two years after the disability is removed.” Hurd’s Rev. Stat., 1913, chap. 83, par. 21, p. 1577.</p> <p>3. Same — exceptions—none as to claims against State. There are no exceptions to the running of the Statute of Limitations in the Court of Claims.</p> <p>4. Statutory Construction — special statute on subject will prevail over general. The first quoted statute is special and the second general, and it is a rule of statutory construction that “the special mention of one thing, indicates that it was not intended to be covered by a general provision which would otherwise include it.”</p> <p>5. Governmental Function — State in conducting penitentiaries exercises. The State in conducting its penitentiaries exercises a governmental function, and is not liable for injuries sustained by convicts in such penitentiaries.</p> <p>6. Practice — Court of Claims not a court of review. The Court of Claim's is not a court of review, and it cannot decide whether a commitment to the penitentiary is faulty or not.</p> <p>7. Non-liability of State — State not liable for loss of time by convict. The State is not liable for loss of time by a convict who may have been erroneously sentenced to prison.</p> <p>8. Respondeat Superior — doctrine of not applicable to State. The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to the State.</p>

<p>1. Inheritance Tax — exemptions should be deducted in determining tax rate. The inheritance tax appraiser appointed by the county court of Cook County fixed the value of the property at $105,010.91. An exemption of $20,000.00 was allowed and the tax fixed on a two per cent basis. Within six months the tax was paid under protest, saving five per cent. On appeal to the county court, the court reduced the tax in accordance with the holding in People v. Ullmann, 263 Ill., 528. Held, an award should be made.</p> <p>2. Practice — claims filed subsequent to May 1. Where a claim is filed subsequent to May 1, and addressed to the following session of Court, the Court will hear the same, if the Attorney General consents to such hearing.</p> <p>3. Interest — State does not pay. The State is not chargeable with interest upon moneys erroneously paid into the State treasury.</p>

<p>1. Governmental Function — State in conducting hospital exercises. The State in conducting the Anna State Hospital exercises a governmental function, and is not liable for the death or injuries to those it employs.</p> <p>2. Respondeat Supebiob — rule of does not apply to State. The rule of respondeat superior does not apply to the State.</p> <p>3. Pbactice — claimant not precluded. Under the facts in this case, the Court does not preclude the claimant.</p>

<p>Inheritance Tax — when an award will be made. In this claim, after the inheritance tax had been paid, an appeal was prayed from the order of the county judge fixing the inheritance tax to the county court, which court reduced the tax. Demands were made on the State Treasurer and county treasurer for a refund of the tax. The claimant having complied with the law in every respect is given an award.</p>

<p>Inheritance Tax — facts held to justify an award. In this case, the tax was assessed at the two dollar rate, from which an appeal was prayed, and after the decision in the Ullmann case, 263 Ill., 528, the tax which had been paid was reduced by the county court of Cook County. Held, that an award should be made.</p>

<p>Contracts — when law will imply promise to pay. Where a State officer is obliged to lay out and expend sums of money in defending a suit brought against him, the basis of which suit is the doing of some act or acts in his official capacity, in order to safeguard the interests of the State, equity will require that he be reimbursed the amount of his necessary outlay.</p>

<p>1. Inheritance Tax — facts held sufficient to justify an award. In this case the executor prayed an appeal from the order of the county judge fixing the tax to the county court, which court reduced the tax; thereupon, the State appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court, in effect, sustained the county court. (People v. Peniston, 262 Ill., 191.)</p> <p>2. Practice — claims filed subsequent to May 1. Where a claim is not filed prior to the first day of May, the Court may hear the same at the following October session, in case the State enters its appearance and consents to a hearing.</p>

<p>Damages — facts held sufficient to justify Court in making award where employee lost property. The claimant was employed as civil engineer by the Rivers and Lakes Commission, and while trying to save property of the State, he lost his surveying instruments in the Big Muddy River. Held, that he is entitled to an award for the amount of the property lost by him.</p>

<p>1. Non-i.iabii.ity of State — Morrissey v. State ante followed. The doctrine announced in the case of Morrissey v. State, supra, is applicable to this claim.</p> <p>2. Statute of Limitations — two year• statute bar to this claim. This claim is unliquidated, and since the cause of action accrued on July 12, 1908, and the claim was not filed until November 29, 1910, the Statute of Limitations is a bar to the same.</p>

<p>Nok-liabjxitx of State — Alling v. State ante followed. This claim is similar to that of Alling v. State, supra, and the law as applicable to that claim, applies to this claim.</p>

<p>1. Respondeat Supebiob — doctrine of not applicable to State. The State, in the absence of express statute, is not liable for injuries sustained by those in its employ.</p> <p>2. Jueisditcion — Act creating Court does not enlarge. The Act creating the Court of Claims has not enlarged or increased the liability of the State íd any particular.</p> <p>3. Pbactice — claimant not precluded. Under the facts, as developed by the proof, the Court, while rejecting the claim, does not preclude claimant.</p>

<p>1. Inheritance Tax — Exemptions should be deducted in fixing rate. Where the total estate amounts to $116,534.73, and there is an exemption of $20,000.00, the rate of the tax should be $1.00 on the hundred.</p> <p>2. Same — facts held to justify an award. In this ease, the county-judge fixed the tax at $1,930.69, the same being at the rate of $2.00 on the hundred. The county court on appeal affirmed the decision of the county judge, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the county court, remanding the cause to the county court with instructions to enter the proper order. The county court then entered an order fixing the tax at the rate of $1.00 on the hundred. (People v. Ullmann, 263 Ill., 528.) Held, that an award should be made.</p> <p>3. Same — payment under protest — demand. The tax was paid under protest and demands were served upon the State and county treasurers for the return of the same.</p> <p>4. Interest — State does not pay. In the absence of a statute allowing interest on claims, the same will be disallowed.</p>

<p>1. Inheritance Tax — facts held sufficient to justify an award. In this claim certain real estate was by mistake included in the inventory and later listed for appraisement by the inheritance tax appraiser. The tax was fixed by the county judge and paid, but upon discovery of the mistake an appeal was prayed to the county court, which court reduced the amount of the tax. Held, that claimants were entitled to a refund of the tax erroneously paid.</p> <p>2. Mistake or Pact — payment under. Money paid voluntarily under a mistake of fact may be recovered.</p>

<p>Negligence — Johnson v. State ante followed. This claim is similar to the claim of Frank O. Johnson v. State, supra. The law governing the Johnson claim covers this claim.</p>

<p>1. Inheritance Tax — reversal of order of county judge by county court — effect of. A reversal of the order of the county judge fixing an inheritance tax by the county court will support a claim for a refund of an inheritance tax.</p> <p>2. Same — exemptions to be deducted in fixing rate. If the total value of the property as fixed by the court, less exemptions, is less than $100,000.00, the rate should be $1.00 on the hundred.</p>

<p>1. Respondeat Supebiob — rule of not applicable to State. This rule of law does not apply to the State, and persons injured through the fault or neglect of employees of the State cannot recover damages.</p> <p>2. Govebnmental Function — State exercises in conducting hospitals. The State, in conducting its State hospitals, exercises a governmental function solely.</p> <p>3. Safety Appliance Act — does not apply to State. The Safety Appliance Act has no application to the State in its relation to its employees.</p> <p>4. Jubisdiction — Court without — of employees injured subsequent to July 1, 1918. Employees of the State injured subsequently to July 1, 1913, may have their claims determined by the Industrial Board. The Court of Claims has no jurisdiction of claims of this character.</p>

<p>Laches — failure of claimant to demand pay. Failure for a number of years on the part of an employee or special officer of the State to demand payment for services which he claims to have performed for the State, will cast suspicion on the genuineness of such claim.</p>

<p>1. Statute of Limitations — as applied to nuisances. The two year statute of limitations does not apply where the nuisance is continuing.</p> <p>2. Johnson v. State — followed. In other respects the law as announced in the claim of Frank O. Johnson v. State, supra, governs this claim.</p>

<p>1. Respondeat Superior — rule of not applicable to State. The rule of respondeat superior does not apply to the State, and the State is not liable for malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance of its officers, agents or employees.</p> <p>2. Governmental Function — State exercises in distributing antitoxin. The State in distributing hog-cholera serum acts solely in a governmental capacity.</p>

<p>1. Inheritance Tax — facts held to justify an award. Claimant, as county treasurer, paid into the State treasury inheritance taxes collected by him in the sum of $338.62. After such payment, it was ascertained that costs of appraisement to the extent of $14.40 had not been deducted. Held, that claimant is entitled to a return of the amount erroneously paid.</p> <p>2. Mistake of Fact — payment under. Money paid under a mistake of fact may he recovered, though not if paid under a mistake of law.</p>

<p>1. Non-liability of State — not liable to persons injured at State Fair. The State is not liable for injuries received by persons attending the State Fair, even though the officers and employees of said fair are guilty of negligence, and such negligence be the cause of the injuries. (Minear v. The State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill., 549.)</p> <p>2. Jurisdiction — Act creating Court did not enlarge State’s liar bility. The law creating the Court of Claims did not create a new liability against the State, but simply provided a method by which a claim may be heard by the Court.</p> <p>3. Pbactice — Court governed by Supreme Court decisions. The Court of Claims will be governed as to the law as the same is declared by the Supreme Court of this State.</p>

<p>Damages — facts held to justify an award. In this claim, there is no dispute as to the law governing the same, and upon the proofs submitted, the Court awards claimants the amount of their demand.</p>

<p>1. Inheritance Tax — in order to obtain refund claimant must appeal. Claimants, in order to secure the transfer of certain shares of stock, owned by Henry C. Hulbert, deceased, a resident of New York, paid to the county treasurer of Cook County the amount of the inheritance tax as fixed by the county judge, but did not thereafter pray an appeal from the order of such judge fixing the tax. Held, that no recovery could be had.</p> <p>2. Same — must obtain decision in claimant’s favor. In order for a claimant to obtain a refund of an inheritance tax erroneously paid, he must obtain a decision in his favor in some court of competent jurisdiction.</p> <p>3. Same — order fixing tax not subject to collateral attack. The order fixing an inheritance tax may not be attacked collaterally, as a basis of a refund of a tax erroneously paid.</p> <p>4. Same — section 10 quoted — no appropriation. Section 10 of the Inheritance Tax law provides, that,</p> <p>“When any amount of said tax shall have been paid erroneously to the State Treasurer, it shall be lawful for him on satisfactory proof rendered to him by said county treasurer of said erroneous payments to refund and pay to the .executor, administrator or trustee, person or persons who have paid any such tax in error the amount of such tax so paid, provided, that all applications for the repayment of said tax shall be made within two years from the date of said payment.”</p> <p>Since no appropriation has ever been made to the State Treasurer for the purpose of refunding taxes erroneously paid, it is impossible for him to comply with the law.</p> <p>5. Practice — Oourt not a court of review. The Court of Claims does not sit as a court of review, to pass upon the decisions of other courts.</p>

<p>1. License Fees — failure to do business mil not warrant return of. Claimant, a South Dakota corporation, asks an award on account of a fee paid the Secretary of State of this State for filing an application to do business in this State, stating that it has done no business in this State. Held, that claimant is not entitled to a return of the fee so paid.</p> <p>2. Same — retention of by State. The statutes of this State require the payment of a fee to the Secretary of State before any papers may be filed, and the retention of the fee by the Secretary of State is in no way conditional upon any further steps being taken by the corporation or individuals.</p> <p>3. Same — indivisible. A fee to incorporate is indivisible.</p> <p>4. Payment — voluntary—no recovery. Money paid voluntarily and not under a mistake of fact may not be recovered.</p>

<p>1. Park Commissioners — control Sherman Park. The Board o£ South Park Commissioners has legal control over Sherman Park.</p> <p>2. Respondeat Superior — doctrine of not applicable to State. The doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable to the State</p>

<p>1. Statutory Construction — general rule with reference to adopted statutes. Where an Act adopts another Act by reference, it means the law as then existing, and does not include subsequent amendments, unless there is an express or strongly implied intent to adopt such amendments.</p> <p>2. Same — exception to general rule. Where, however, the adopting statute makes no reference to any particular Act by its title or otherwise, but refers to the general law regulating the subject, the reference will be regarded as including, not only the law in force at the date of the adopting Act, but also the law in force when action is taken or proceedings are resorted to.</p> <p>3. Same — all words in Act given effect. It is a rule of statutory construction, that all the words in an Act must be given effect, if possible.</p> <p>4. Words and Phrases — meaning of phrase “now m force.” The words “now in force,” which are used in section 14, supra, are defined by clause 18, par. 1, chap. 131 [statutes], Hurd’s Rev. Stat., 1913, p. 2379, to mean: “The term, Taws now in force,’ and words of similar import, shall mean the laws in force at the time the Act containing the words, shall take effect.”</p>

<p>Statute of Limitations — claims barred if not filed within two-year period. Where the cause of action accrued on August 3, 1912, and the claim was not filed with the Auditor until February 16, 1915, the Statute of Limitations is a bar to the claim.</p>

<p>1. Respondeat Superior — doctrine of not applicable to State. The doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to the State, and the State is not liable for the torts of its officers, agents and employees.</p> <p>2. Same — does not apply where officers exceed authority. Neither is the State liable if its officers exceed their authority.</p> <p>3. Park Commissioners — are State officers. The West Chicago Park Commissioners is a municipal corporation. (Backer v. West Chicago Park Commissioners, 66 Ill. App., 507; Brown v. City of Decatur, 188 Ill. App., 147), and the commissioners are State officers. (WiZcoa; v. People, 90 Ill., 186; West Chicago Park Comr missioners v. McMullen, 134 Ill., 170.)</p> <p>3. Workmen’s Compensation Act — Act of 1911 did not include State. The Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911 did not include the State within its terms.</p>

<p>Contracts — when law will imply promise to pay. In this claim, the State received the benefit of certain materials purchased by claimant while she was employed at the Elgin State Hospital. Held, that claimant should be awarded the amount expended by her in purchasing such materials.</p>

<p>Aemobies — Bradford v. State ante followed. This claim is similar to the claim of Bradford v. State, supra, and the law as there stated applies to this claim.</p>

<p>1. Mistake cot Fact — contractor making mistake in estimates. Where a contractor in making estimates upon work to he performed by him honestly makes mistakes, in such estimates, he may have his contract rescinded.</p> <p>2. Waiver-; — when binding. Where a waiver is executed, in order that the same may be binding, the party executing the same must have been apprised of his rights at the time of the execution of such waiver.</p>