Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

The Consolidated Coal Company v. State of Illinois

4 Ill. Ct. Cl. 311 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1923-03-08
Disposition: awarded Award: $194.44
Cite as: The Consolidated Coal Company v. State of Illinois, 4 Ill. Ct. Cl. 311 (1923)

THE CONSOLIDATED COAL COMPANY v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Case summary

The claimant sought payment of $194.44 in freight charges on coal sold and delivered to the State. The Attorney General consented to the award, and the court awarded the full amount.

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. CONTRACT-when State liable for freight charges. The State is liable

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General, for State. F. D. Whipp, fiscal supervisor. The Attorney General of the State of

THE CONSOLIDATED COAL COMPANY

v.

STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Opinion filed March 8, 1923.

CONTRACT-when State liable for freight charges. The State is liable for freight charges on coal sold and delivered to it for its use.

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General, for State.

The Consolidated Coal Company of St. Louis files a statement of claim, setting forth that it is an Illinois Corporation; that there is due it from the State of Illinois the sum of $194.44 covering freight paid by it on coal sold by it, transported and delivered to the State of Illinois and attaches freight bills to affidavit of claim, together with a copy of letter from Secretary of State acknowledging receipt of the shipments of coal and the approval of the Welfare Department, approved by F. D. Whipp, fiscal supervisor. The Attorney General of the State of Illinois representing the State in this case files his content to an award in the sum of $194.44 and waives further proof.

The Court therefore awards the claimant the sum of $194.44 in full satisfaction of said claim.

Official volume 4 (Compiled and Reported by the Authority of the State of Illinois 1923)  ·  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.