C. J. ALBERT v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Case summary

Claimant sought refund of a $200 license fee paid under an unconstitutional statute. The court followed Di Cosola v. State and awarded the full amount with the Attorney General's consent.

Claim type: Unjust Enrichment Refund

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 case is con-

LICENSE FEE-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. E. L. Harpham and C. W. Greenfield, for Claimant.

C. J. ALBERT

v.

STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Opinion filed December 10, 1908.

LICENSE FEE-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.

E. L. Harpham and C. W. Greenfield, for Claimant.

W. H. Stead, Attorney General, for State.

C. J. Albert, 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 April 29, 1902, 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 11, 1899, and going into effect July 1, 1899, held unconstitutional 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, accordingly award the claimant the sum of two hundred ($200.00) dollars.