Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Lapsed Appropriation
Download PDF

Sinclair Refining Company v. Nois

26 Ill. Ct. Cl. 327 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1969-02-24 No. 5554
Disposition: (No. 5554-Claimant awarded $748.59.) Award: $748.59 Agency: Department of Conservation
Cite as: Sinclair Refining Company v. Nois, 26 Ill. Ct. Cl. 327 (1969)
Lapsed Appropriation 26 awarded 1960s Sinclair Refining Company v. Nois 26 Ill. Ct. Cl. 327 1969-02-24 (No. 5554-Claimant awarded $748.59.) /opinions/v26-p0368-1/

SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLI- NOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought $908.81 for materials furnished to the Department of Conservation. The court found the claim was for a lapsed appropriation and awarded $748.59, the stipulated amount due.

Claim type: Lapsed Appropriation

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

Headnotes

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

Claimant, Sinclair Refining Company, filed its complaint against respondent for the sum of $908.81 for materials furnished the Department of Conservation of the State of Illinois.

A stipulation was subsequently entered into by claimant and respondent as follows:

“That claimant, Sinclair Refining Company, had furnished materials as alleged in claimant’s statement of claim.

“That there is lawfully due claimant the sum of Seven Hundred Forty Eight Dollars and Fifty Nine Cents ($748.59).

“That, as a result of delay in billing by claimant herein, payment was not made prior to the closing of the biennial appropriation.

“That claimant continues to be the sole person interested in this claim, and that no assignment thereof had occurred.

[*328] ’,)

“That upon the foregoing agreed case filed herein the Court shall decide thereon, and render judgment herein according to the rights of the parties in the same manner as if the facts aforesaid were proved upon the trial of said issue.”

This is a matter of a lapsed appropriation, and this Court has repeatedly held that, where a contract has been (1) properly entered into; (2) service is satisfactorily performed, and materials furnished in accordance with such contract; (3) proper charges made therefor; (4) adequate funds were available at the time the contracts were entered into; and, (5) the appropriation for the biennium from which such claim could have been paid had lapsed, it would enter an award for the amount due.

Claimant, Sinclair Refining Company, is, therefore, awarded the sum of $748.59.

Official volume 26 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion between: January 10, 1967–June 20, 1969)  ·  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.