Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Moline Consumers Company v. State of Illinois

15 Ill. Ct. Cl. 100 Illinois Court of Claims Filed March 19, 1946 No. 3866
Disposition: (No. 3866-Claimant awardsed $45.20.) Award: $45.20 Agency: Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways
Cite as: Moline Consumers Company v. State of Illinois, 15 Ill. Ct. Cl. 100 (1946)
Legacy General 15 awarded 1940s Moline Consumers Company v. State of Illinois 15 Ill. Ct. Cl. 100 March 19, 1946 (No. 3866-Claimant awardsed $45.20.) /opinions/v15-p0118-1/

MOLINE CONSUMERS COMPANY, Claimant;, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought $45.20 for a carload of sand sold and delivered to the Division of Highways. The court awarded the amount because the goods were properly ordered, the charges were reasonable, and the appropriation had lapsed without fault of the claimant.

Claim type: Lapsed Appropriation

Cases cited: Rock Island Sand and Gravel Company vs. State of Illinois, 8 C. C. R. 165

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

Headnotes

  1. SmPmEs-lapse ot appropriation before payment-sufticient unexpensled bala-nce in-when award ?nay be made for vialue of. Where merchandise is sold to the State, on its order, and received by it and claimfant submits a bill in the correct amount therefor within a reasonable time, and due to no fault or negligence on his part, Same is not approved and vouchered for payment before lapse of appropriation from which it is payable, an award may be made for the value thereof, .where at the time same was furnished there were sufficient funds remaining therein to pay same.

This complaint wa-s filed on July 13, 1944 by the above named claimant pro se.

It seeks an award for $45.20 for one carload of sand sold and delivered to the Department of Public Works and Buildings, Division of Highways.

The record consists of the complaint and the report of the Division of Highways, said report having been filed August 19, 1944.

The report discloses that the Division of Highways, acting by and through its 'district engineer, placed an order for a carload of sand with the Missouri Gravel [*101] Company, Moline, Illinois. This order was dated June 13, 1943, and bore the No. D-51493. The actual volume of sand was not designated, but the grade of sand, the rate per ton, and the shipping destination were previously agreed upon. Shipment of the sand was made as per order by the Missouri Gravel Company, a subsidiary of claimant, and was' received and used by the Division of Highways at Meredosia, Illinois. The freight charges on the sand were paid by the Division of Highways.

This report further shows that thereafter, the Division of Highways received no invoices on this sand and for that reason the claim has never been paid.

The complaint shows that the car of sand contained 113,0001 lbs. @ 80c per ton, or $45.20.

Appropriation had been made and funds were available for the payment of such purchases used by the

' Division, but inasmuch as the appropriation had lapsed, the Division of Highways could not' schedule and pay claimant's invoices from current appropriation and funds.

We have repeatedly held that where goods, wares, anCl.merrchandise have been furnished to the State on the order of employees of the respondent who had the proper authority to order said goods and that the charges therefor, were fair, reasonable and customary, and that the appropriation had lapsed without any fault or neglect on the part of the claimant, an award will be made for the amount or value of said goods. (Rock Islartd Sand and Gravel Company vs. State of Illinois, 8 C. C. R. 165.) An award is therefore entered in favor of the claimant for the use of the Missouri Gravel Company, its subsidiary, in the sum of $45.20.

Official volume 15 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion between: July 1, 1945–June 30, 1946)  ·  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.