{
  "id": 2710569,
  "name": "Pete Topnes, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Topnes v. State",
  "decision_date": "1981-05-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 80-CC-2066",
  "first_page": "257",
  "last_page": "259",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 257"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 256,
    "char_count": 3708,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.889,
    "sha256": "8f653e11a0e0d8618a63e9d88d472512b46a03789303a4b317f5912dbbdc255b",
    "simhash": "1:13221f747442fa69",
    "word_count": 621
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:32.678350+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Pete Topnes, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Roe, C. J.\nThis is an action brought by Claimant, Pete Topnes, pursuant to the provisions of Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 15, pars. 210.10, 210.16, to recover $150.00, being the amount of a State warrant issued to him but never received by him.\nThe pertinent statutory sections are the following:\n\u201c10.10 (a) If any comptroller\u2019s warrant is lost, mislaid or destroyed, or becomes void after issuance, so that it cannot be presented for payment by the person entitled thereto, the comptroller, at any time before that warrant is paid by the State Treasurer, but within one year of the date of issuance, may issue a replacement warrant to the person entitled thereto.\u201d Emphasis supplied.\n\u201c10.16 If the comptroller refuses to draw and issue a replacement warrant under Section 10.10 \u00b0 * * persons who would be entitled under Section 10.10 to request a replacement warrant may file an action in the Court for the payment of the sum indicated due on the warrant e \u201d\nThe facts developed at the hearing of this cause are as follows:\nOn November 2, 1977, Warrant Ab7708104 was issued to Claimant in the amount of $150.96. The check represented a senior citizen grant. Claimant never got the check. At an unspecified date in 1977, however, the check was deposited in an account at the North Community State Bank in Chicago, Illinois, with endorsement: \u201cPete Topnes North Ave apt good for deposit only.\u201d\nMr. Topnes lives in an apartment building at 2659 West North Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. The tenants pick up their mail in a store located on the first floor of the building and operated by someone connected with the management of the building.\nMr. Topnes never has done business with the North Community State Bank, and testified additionally that he did not authorize anyone to deposit his check in an account at the North Community State Bank. The record does not show the owner of the account in which the check was deposited. From the wording of the endorsement a reasonable \u201cconjecture\u201d would be that someone signed Mr. Topnes\u2019 name and deposited the check in an account set up for the apartment building, possibly for the deposit of rents.\nHowever, how the check happened to be deposited in someone else\u2019s bank account without Claimant\u2019s authorization is irrelevant.\nThe statute makes clear that the Comptroller can issue a new warrant only if the original warrant has not been paid by the State Treasurer. Further, the Comptroller, \u201cbefore issuing the replacement warrant, shall issue a stop payment order on the State Treasurer and receive a confirmation of the stop payment order on the original warrant from the State Treasurer.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 15, par. 210.10. The warrant was long since paid by the State Treasurer when Mr. Topnes filed his claim with the Court of Claims on May 20, 1980.\nIt is apparent from looking at Claimant\u2019s exhibits 4, 5, and 6 that the signature \u201cPete Topnes\u201d on exhibit 4 was written by someone other than Claimant. If that person signed Claimant\u2019s name and then beneath it added his own identifying endorsement \u201cNorth Ave apt good for deposit only\u201d so that the check could be deposited in that person\u2019s account \u2014 all without Mr. Topnes\u2019 knowledge or consent \u2014 then Mr. Topnes\u2019 cause of action is against that person, or possibly the North Community State Bank. But the State of Illinois is in no way responsible for this state of affairs.\nUnder the foregoing circumstances this-Court must, and hereby does, deny this claim.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Roe, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pete Topnes, pro se, for Claimant.",
      "Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (William P. King, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 80-CC-2066\nPete Topnes, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed May 6, 1981.\nPete Topnes, pro se, for Claimant.\nTyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (William P. King, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0257-01",
  "first_page_order": 359,
  "last_page_order": 361
}