DR. C. PRUYN STRINGFIELD v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Case summary
Claimant sought $350 for medical services to a state soldier, but failed to file proofs, abstracts, or briefs as required by court rules; the court dismissed the claim on the Attorney General's motion for want of prosecution.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- PRACTICE-rules of-failure to observe. Where claimant has not
DR. C. PRUYN STRINGFIELD
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed September 28, 1906.
PRACTICE-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.
Alonzo Hoff, for Claimant.
W. H. Stead, Attorney General, for State.
The claimant, Dr. C. Pruyn Stringfield, on the 6th day of April, 1903, filed his claim in this Court for compensation for medical and surgical services rendered to one Sergeant Henry Becker, on account of injuries received by said Becker while he was in the service of the State, and one of and acting with a detachment of Troop A of Illinois Cavalry, and while said Troop was detailed as escort to His Royal Highness, Prince Henry of Prussia, in Chicago, on the 5th day of March, A. D. 1903.
The amount claimed is $350.00.
No steps having been taken by the complainant to comply with the rules of this Court, or the requirements of the statute in regard to the filing of proofs, abstracts and arguments, on the 13th day of November, A. D. 1905, a motion was made by the Attorney General to dismiss this case for want of prosecution, which motion is allowed and the cause dismissed accordingly.