{
  "id": 2811670,
  "name": "Grayslake Gelatine Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grayslake Gelatine Co. v. State",
  "decision_date": "1935-06-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 2517",
  "first_page": "668",
  "last_page": "669",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 Ill. Ct. Cl. 668"
    }
  ],
  "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": 177,
    "char_count": 3109,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "sha256": "dc700df31bd5a358a647d9e446cbd0cbb90ec39e57a99989c39032601d614681",
    "simhash": "1:d9f91fabef55faa1",
    "word_count": 524
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:37.717265+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Grayslake Gelatine Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mb. Chief Justice Hollebich\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIt appears from the stipulation of facts herein that claimant is an Illinois corporation; that on January 23, 1934, it filed its annual report in the office of the Secretary of State, in which report the outstanding capital stock of the corporation was set forth at $320,000.00; that on May 15, 1934 the Secretary of State assessed a franchise tax on said capital stock for the year commencing July 1, 1934, according to law, in the amount of $160.00; that on June 26, 1934 the claimant paid the amount so assessed against it; that thereafter and prior to July 1, 1934, claimant reduced its capital stock from $320,000.00 to $160,000.00; and that the correct amount of the franchise tax on a capital stock of $160,000.00 is $80.00.\nCl\u00e1imant filed its complaint herein on October 16, 1934, and seeks to recover the sum of $80.00 which it claims to have paid in excess of the amount which it was legally required to pay on its decreased, capital stock as aforesaid.\nThe provisions of Section 132 of The Business Corporation Act of this State, in force July 13, 1933, relative to the basis for the annual franchise tax of domestic corporations are as follows:\n\u201cThe basis for the annual franchise tax payable by a domestic corporation shall be the amount represented in this State, determined in accordance with the provisions of this Section, of the sum of its stated capital and paid-in surplus on the thirty-first day of December of the preceding calendar year as disclosed by its last annual report, or, in case no annual report has been filed, as disclosed by any other report or document filed by it with the Secretary of State.\u201d\nHowever, such paragraph was modified by an amendment approved and in force May 8, 1934, and now provides as follows:\n\u201cThe basis for the annual franchise tax payable by a domestic corporation shall be the amount represented in this State, determined in accordance with the provisions of this Section, of the sum of its stated capital and paid-in surplus on the thirty-first day of December of the preceding calendar year, minus the amount by which the sum of the stated capital and paid-in surplus may have been reduced after the thirty-first day of December of the preceding calendar year and prior to the twenty-fifth day of June of the current calendar year, as disclosed by any report or document filed by it with the Secretary of State.\"\nInasmuch as claimant\u2019s capital stock was not reduced until after the 25th day of June, A. D. 1934, the franchise tax in question was properly based upon \u201cthe sum of its stated capital and paid-in surplus on the 31st day of December of the preceding calendar year\u201d, to-wit, $320,000.00.\nClaimant therefore paid the amount which it was legally required to pay.\nAward must therefore be denied.\nAward denied. Case dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mb. Chief Justice Hollebich"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moses, Kennedy, Stein & Bachbaoh, for claimant.",
      "Otto Kebneb, Attorney General; John Kassebman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 2517\nGrayslake Gelatine Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed June 1, 1935.\nMoses, Kennedy, Stein & Bachbaoh, for claimant.\nOtto Kebneb, Attorney General; John Kassebman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0668-01",
  "first_page_order": 690,
  "last_page_order": 691
}