CARROLL DISTRIBUTING CO., Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. Opanion filed M a y 12, 1942. Claimant, pro se. \ GEORGE E'. BARRETT, Attorney General ; GLENN A. TREVOR, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. PLEADING - complaznt faalzng t o set f o r t h came of actzon - mzist be dis- nzissed. Where complaint on its face fails t o state a cause of action against the State, motion to dismiss must be sustained. Sanic-rules of court- failure t o comply wath justafied dasmzssal of claim. Failure to comply with rules 4(a), 5 ( a ), 5 ( b ) and 6 ( a ) of the Court of Claims justifies dismissal of claim. J. ECKERT, Complaint n7as filed i-n this case on September 6, 1940, alleging : “In July of 1939, we were informed that we didn’t need retail license to sell beer when such beer was not sold on our premises and was not sold in less quantity than case or keg and beer delivered to purchaser’s home was not f o r resale. “We asked for refund and received reply that they would make refund but were unable to get appropriation necessary from Legislature.” To this complaint respondent has filed a motion to dismiss. The complaint on its face is entirely insufficient to state a cause of action. Furthermore, it fails to comply with Rules 4 ( a ), 5 ( a ), 5(b), and 6(a) of this court., Respondent’s motion to dismiss is therefore sustained, and claimant given thirty days in which to amend its com- plaint; in the event claimant declines o r fails so to amend, I . this order dismissing the claim shall become final. ( N o . 3697-Claimant awarded $8.14.) CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, (DEL.),Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Headnotes
- SuPPixEs-Zapse of appropriation-suficimt unexpended balance in-whert award for value of m a y be made. The facts i n this case are the same as those in M. W. Kiely Coal Company vs. State, post this volume and what was said by the court therein is applicaFle here.
Claimant seeks an award in the amount of $8.14. A stipulation between the parties hereto provides that the report of the Division of Highways shall constitute the record in this case, which report is dated April 6, 1942.
This claim is. for gasoline furnished to the Division of Highways or Division of Police, during the months of February, April and June, 1941, and should therefore be covered by the appropriation which lapsed September 30, 1941.
It appears from the report of the Division of Highways that the invoices were originally scheduled at that time by the claimant, but through various causes had not been paid due to [*121] no’negligence or fault on the part of the claimant, until after the lapse of the appropriation, and at the time the indebtedness was incurred, and at the time said appropriation lapsed, there remained therein an unexpended balance sufficient to have paid such bills.
This case comes within the rule that:
“Where claimant has rendered services or furnished supplies to the State on the order or request of aa official authorized to contract for the same, and submits a bill therefor within a reasonable time, and due to no negligence or fault on the part of claimant same is not approved and vouchered for payment before the appropriation from which it is payable lapses, an award for the reasonable and customary value of the services or supplies will be made where, at the time the obligation was incurred there were sufficient funds remaining unexpended in the appropriation to pay for the same.” Rock Island Eand d Uravel Co. vs. State, 8 C. C. R., 165.
Since the report clearly indicated that the persons ordering the merchandise had the authority to do so and that they were furnished by claimant, and were as represented, and that the prices charged were as agreed upon at the request of the Division of Highways or Division of Police is a sufficient showing for an award.
The claims appearing to be legal and just, an award is therefore made for the payment of same in the sum of Eight and 14/100 Dollars ($8.14).