Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Lapsed Appropriation
Download PDF

Dantet F. Rine v. State of Illinois

24 Ill. Ct. Cl. 207 Illinois Court of Claims Filed April 13, 1962 No. 4979
Disposition: (No. 4979-Claimant awarded $93.60.) Award: $93.60
Cite as: Dantet F. Rine v. State of Illinois, 24 Ill. Ct. Cl. 207 (1962)
Lapsed Appropriation 24 awarded 1960s Dantet F. Rine v. State of Illinois 24 Ill. Ct. Cl. 207 April 13, 1962 (No. 4979-Claimant awarded $93.60.) /opinions/v24-p0252-1/

Dantet F. Rine, Suerirr or THE County or Sr. Crar, Claimant, ys. STATE OF ItrtNots, Respondent.

Headnotes

  1. TraveL Expenses-lapsed appropriation. Where evidence showed that the only reason claim was not paid was due to the fact that, prior to the
  2. time a statement was presented, the appropriation lapsed, an award will be made.

Claimant, Daniel F. Ring, Sheriff of the County of St. Clair, asks the sum of $93.60 as mileage fees for conveying persons to the Illinois State Prison, Menard Branch. The claim was submitted to the Department of [*208] Public Safety, but was not paid for the reason that the charges were payable from the appropriation for the 70th Biennium, which lapsed September 30, 1959.

It has been stipulated that the Departmental Report, dated May 18, 1961, which was filed in this cause under Rule 16, shall constitute the record in this case.

| Chap. 53, Sec. 37, 1961 Ill. Rev. Stats., provides for payment of the sum of twenty cents per mile out of the State Treasury to Sheriffs for conveying persons in going only to the penitentiary.

When a claim would have been paid in due course, if the appropriation had not lapsed, this Court will make an award. It is agreed that the claim herein would have been so paid, if the appropriation had not lapsed.

An award is, therefore, made to Daniel F. Ring, Sheriff of the County of St. Clair, in the amount of $93.60.

Official volume 24 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion between: November 16, 1960–August 20, 1964)  ·  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.