JOHN HUENNIG v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Case summary
Claimant, appointed to the State Board of Examiners of Horseshoers, performed services for which the appropriation was later held unconstitutional. The court awarded him $280 for services rendered, finding it inequitable for the State to refuse payment.
Cases cited: Fergus v. Russel
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
JOHN HUENNIG
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS.
Opinion filed May 12, 1917.
Services-payment for will be made-when. Services rendered by a person duly appointed to perform certain duties will be paid by the State, even though the Act embracing the appropriation for that purpose is held unconstitutional.
T. J. Conlon, for Claimant.
Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General, for State.
Claimant was appointed a member of the State Board of Examiners of Horseshoers for the State of Illinois, on February 8, 1915, and in pursuance of his appointment entered upon his duties and performed the services required of him until the first day of March, A. D. 1917.
The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois in the suit entitled Fergus v. Russel, et al, decided that the appropriation for the payment of salaries and fees of the Board of Examiners of Horseshoers, was, among other appropriations, unconstitutional.
Claimant continued to perform his services and on February, 1917, there was due him the sum of $280.00, which he has been unable to collect by reason of the decision in the Fergus case aforesaid.
It would be inequitable for the State to refuse to pay claimant for the services performed by him in this connection, and we are therefore of the opinion that he is entitled to the amount of his claim.
Claimant is accordingly awarded the sum of two hundred eighty and 00/100 ($280.00) dollars.