Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Gund-Graham Company v. State of Illinois

7 Ill. Ct. Cl. 39 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1931-12-08 No. 1860
Disposition: (No. 1860-Claimant awarded $19,082.60.) Award: $19,082.60 Agency: Division of Highways, Department of Public Works and Buildings
Cite as: Gund-Graham Company v. State of Illinois, 7 Ill. Ct. Cl. 39 (1931)
Legacy General 7 awarded 1930s Gund-Graham Company v. State of Illinois 7 Ill. Ct. Cl. 39 1931-12-08 (No. 1860-Claimant awarded $19,082.60.) /opinions/v07-p0057-1/

GUND-GRAHAM COMPANY, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

The claimant sought damages for cancellation of road construction contracts due to the invalidation of the Prevailing Wage Law. The court found the claim reasonable and awarded $19,082.60 based on an agreed settlement.

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. CONTRACTS-work performed and materials furnished under contract held invalid-damages-stipulation-when award may be made. Where claimant enters into a contract with a department of the State and performs services or furnishes materials thereunder, and thereafter contract is cancelled by State because of Act under which same was awarded being declared invalid by Supreme Court to the damage of claimant, an award may be made for such damage and work performed and materials furnished, where facts are undisputed, on stipulation of the parties, approved by the Attorney General.

This is a suit brought by the claimant, Gund-Graham Company, a corporation, of the City of Freeport, County of Cook, State of Illinois, against the defendant, State of Illinois, to recover damages caused by the cancellation of road construction contracts No. 4631, 4540, 4541 and 4542 on State Bond Issue Route No. 47, Section 106, awarded on the 4th day of September, 1931, and Route No. 85, Sections 102, 102-X, and 103-X awarded on the 12th day of September, 1931.

The facts in this case are as follows: That after the complainant commenced performance under the said contracts it received a notice from the respondent on the 6th day of October, 1931, through its Division of Highways, Department of Public Works and Buildings, that no payments could be made for work done under the contracts for the reason that the "Prevailing Wage Law" under which the contracts had been let was held to be invalid and void by the courts of this State and that in the event the claimant proceeded further under the said contracts, it did so at its own peril. When this notice [*40] was received the complainant had already completed work under the contracts costing $8,090.69 and thereafter complainant's forces and machinery remained idle from October 6 to November 2nd, 1931, thereby necessitating considerable expense in addition to the cost of work completed, for which the claimant asked damages, and the State was then and there so notified.

Thereupon, the Division of Highways, Department of Public Works and Buildings, of the State of Illinois, through its Director and Chief Highway Engineer, after making deductions for cement sacks salvaged, reached an agreement in settlement of the damages caused as aforesaid and stipulated to make payment in the sum of $19,082.60. The Attorney General has approved of the said settlement and stipulation; but the Division of Highways could not pay the claim and therefore recommended that a claim be filed with this court.

As there is no dispute as to the facts presented in the claimant's declaration, and the evidence establishes the claimant's right of action, the court is of the opinion that the claim is reasonable and should be paid. The court accordingly awards the claimant the sum of $19,082.60.

Official volume 7 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1931–June 30, 1933)  ·  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.