Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Erwin v. State of Illinois

5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 44 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1924-12-18 No. 773
Disposition: (No. 773-Claim denied.)
Cite as: Erwin v. State of Illinois, 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 44 (1924)
Legacy General 5 denied 1920s Erwin v. State of Illinois 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 44 1924-12-18 (No. 773-Claim denied.) /opinions/v05-p0064-1/

GEORGE ERWIN, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought refund of $34.00 paid for a truck license, alleging the payment was erroneous because the truck did not require such a license. The court denied the claim, finding no legal remedy and no basis in equity or good conscience to order a refund.

Claim type: Unjust Enrichment Refund

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. LICENSE FEES-when refund will not be made. Claimant is not entitled SAME-moneys paid under mistake of law cannot be recovered. Moneys

This is a claim filed to recover the sum of $34.00 alleged to be an erroneous payment made to procure license for operation of a truck in such manner that it did not come under the Statute requiring the amount paid as alleged.

The Attorney General comes and files objections to the allowance of said claim on the ground that this court could not and would not allow claims based upon mistakes in the payment of fees to the various departments of the State.

This court in reviewing the facts as appears from the records in the case, is of the opinion that there is no redress upon the claim filed as a matter of law, and it is further the opinion of the court that there is nothing in the record that would permit the court to make a refund as a matter of equity and good conscience, such as is contemplated by the legislature in creating this court. Therefore the court being without remedy in the premises, denies said claim.

Official volume 5 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1923–June 30, 1927)  ·  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.