Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

National Fire Proofing Company v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 500 Illinois Court of Claims Filed March 11, 1931 No. 1681
Disposition: (No. 1681-Claimant awarded $644.20.) Award: $644.20 Agency: Secretary of State
Cite as: National Fire Proofing Company v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 500 (1931)
Legacy General 6 awarded 1930s National Fire Proofing Company v. State of Illinois 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 500 March 11, 1931 (No. 1681-Claimant awarded $644.20.) /opinions/v06-p0529-1/

NATIONAL FIRE PROOFING COMPANY, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant paid a franchise tax after withdrawing from Illinois business due to a mutual mistake. The court awarded a refund of $644.29 because no tax was due.

Claim type: Tax Refund

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

Headnotes

  1. FRANCHISE TAX.-when award will be made as a result of mutual mistake. SOLDIERS' COMPENSATION-when award will be made to heirs of deceased

Claimant is a foreign corporation which was licensed to do business in Illinois. On April 9, 1930, claimant filed its certificate of withdrawal, having ceased to do business in this State. Thereafter the Secretary of State, through an oversight, sent a bill to claimant for the franchise tax for the year beginning July 1, 1930, and ending June 30, 1931, amounting to $644.29, and the same was paid. It is admitted by the Secretary of State that no tax was due from claimant and its payment was the result of a mutual mistake, and the Attorney General concedes claimant is entitled to have it refunded.

Claimant is therefore allowed an award in the sum of $644.29. [*501] (Claims allowed.)

LUDWIG SVOBODA, FRANTISKA MIKULECKA, JOHN SVOBODA, AND ANTON SVOBODA, 1700; NELLIE G. HALLIDAY, 1701; EDNA ELMA CONE, 1702; SHERMAN SCOTT, 1703; MATHILDA HIERONYMUS

Official volume 6 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1927–June 30, 1931)  ·  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.