Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Connaghan v. State of Illinois

5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 186 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1925-05-01 No. 887
Disposition: (No. 887-Claimant awarded $433.02 with interest.) Award: $433.02
Cite as: Connaghan v. State of Illinois, 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 186 (1925)
Legacy General 5 awarded 1920s Connaghan v. State of Illinois 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 186 1925-05-01 (No. 887-Claimant awarded $433.02 with interest.) /opinions/v05-p0206-1/

JOHN CONNAGHAN, et al., Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimants sought a refund of inheritance taxes overpaid under Section 25 of the Illinois Inheritance Tax law. The court re-assessed the tax, found an overpayment, and awarded $433.02 plus interest.

Claim type: Tax Refund

Statutes cited: Section 25, Illinois Inheritance Tax laws

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

Headnotes

  1. INHERITANCE TAX-when claimant entitled to refund. Sec. 25. There OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLE-

John Connaghan et al, claimants, file this claim for refund of inheritance taxes to be due them under the provisions of Section 25, Illinois Inheritance Tax laws.

It appears that claimant paid the sum of $443.39 with interest $32.87 equal $476.26.

Later, on proper petition, the court re-assessed said tax in sum of $32.00 and the interest thereon, to-wit: $2.40, equal $34.40 due as inheritance tax, showing the sum of $441.86 less 2% retained by the county treasurer of Adams county, being the sum of $8.84, leaving a balance due for refund to claimants the sum of $433.02, together with interest thereon at 3% per annum from February 1, 1924, to this date, which is ordered paid to claimants, John Connaghan, Daniel Connaghan, James Connaghan, Mary Connaghan, Rose Gmeiner, Mary Warrell, Margaret Robinson and Bridget Flannagan or their legal representatives.

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.