MIKE CUCULICK v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Case summary
Claimant sought recovery of a $200 license fee paid under an unconstitutional statute; the court followed Di Cosola v. State and awarded the amount with the Attorney General's consent.
Cases cited: Di Cosola v. State; Mathews v. The People, 202 Ill., 389
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- LICENSE FEE-Di Cosola v. State ante followed. This claim is
MIKE CUCULICK
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed December 19, 1908.
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.
E. L. Harpham and C. W. Greenfield, for Claimant.
W. H. Stead, Attorney General, for State.
Mike Cuculick, claimant herein, seeks to recover two hundred ($200.00) dollars on account of the payment by him of a license fee in that amount to Honorable James A. Rose, Secretary of State, on or about March 18, 1903, for a license to operate a "private employment agency for hire" in the city of Chicago, under an Act of the General Assembly relative thereto, passed April 18, 1899, and going into effect July 1, 1899, held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court April 24, 1903, in the case of Mathews v. The People, 202 Ill., 389.
This case is on the same state of facts and involves the same questions as in the case of Michaele Di Cosola v. The State, decided by this Court at the present term, and in which an award was made in favor of the claimant; what we said and held in that case controls in this; and likewise as in that case the Honorable Attorney General consents to an award herein in the sum of two hundred ($200.00) dollars.
We, therefore, award the claimant the sum of two hundred ($200.00) dollars.