Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Fogarty v. State of Illinois

1 Ill. Ct. Cl. 213 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1899-12-28
Disposition: dismissed
Cite as: Fogarty v. State of Illinois, 1 Ill. Ct. Cl. 213 (1899)
Legacy General 1 dismissed 1890s Fogarty v. State of Illinois 1 Ill. Ct. Cl. 213 1899-12-28 dismissed /opinions/v01-p0241-1/

J. G. FOGARTY v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Case summary

Claimant sought rent and fixture payments from the State for subletting property to a National Guard unit, but failed to file proofs, abstracts, or arguments as required by statute and Commission rules. The court dismissed the claim without considering its merits due to noncompliance.

Claim type: Contract

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

Headnotes

  1. PRACTICE-rules of Commission must be followed. Rules of Com-

J. G. FOGARTY

v.

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Opinion filed December 28, 1899.

PRACTICE-rules of Commission must be followed. Rules of Commission and provisions of statute governing practice before the Commission are not unreasonable or technical and must be followed by persons seeking relief at the hands of the Commission.

The claimant, J. G. Fogarty, alleges in his claim filed May 5, 1899, that he is the lessee of certain property in the city of Springfield and that he sublet a portion of the building to company "C," Fifth Regiment, Illinois National Guard, and that there is due him a balance of ninety dollars rent for the months of July and August, 1895, also for rent of fixtures, forty dollars and interest on said sum amounting to twenty-nine dollars and eighteen cents making a total of one hundred and fifty-nine dollars and eighteen cents due and unpaid according to his statements in said claim. Claimant has filed no proofs, abstracts or arguments as required by the statute and the rules of the Commission but simply rested his case on the verified claim or declaration.

The State by E. C. Akin, Attorney General, very aptly filed a motion to dismiss for want of proof and due compliance with the statute and the rules of the Commission by claimant in prosecuting his claim.

The Commission in accord with its decisions rendered heretofore in similar cases are bound to sustain the motion of the state and dismiss the claim, without considering the merits of the claim at all, as we do not consider the rules of the Commission nor the provisions of the statute governing the practice before the Commission unreasonable or technical, and it is no hardship on anyone to follow them strictly when seeking relief at the hands of the Commission, and any person unable to prosecute his own claim should employ competent counsel to assist him and not expect the Commission to do business in "Town Meeting" style.

Claim dismissed.

Official volume 1 (Compiled and Reported by the Authority of the State of Illinois 1905)  ·  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.