Parsons v. State, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 191 (1929)

April 25, 1929 · Illinois Court of Claims
6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 191
H. Leet Parsons, 865; Edward Abert, 890; Mrs. James O'Brien, 914; James Ledwith, Susan Ledwith and Clement Ledwith, 932; Richard Hoyt Moore, 940; Wm. Donaldson, 941; J. J. Hill, 942; Clara Still, 949; Joseph Bibo, 950; Martha Hoeft, 951; James M. Langston, 952; Ben F. Bowlby, 954; Chicago Poultry Breeders Ass'n., a Corporation, 894; Julius M. Shreve, 1223; Catherine Hofreiter, 955; John Bibo, Julia Bibo and Anna Bibo, 992; Z. Kerley, 1016; Foreman Trust and Savings Bank, Guardian of the Estate of Allen Williams, a Minor, 1038; William E. Stillwell, 1047; James Warren Lytle, 1059; E. W. Ellis, 1072; Roy H. Browning, 1074; Wm. Carter, 1129; J. A. Stubblefield, 1202; Joseph D. Means, 1239; Glenson Myers, 1252; Clarence C. Cox and Minnie J. Cox, 1291; O. G. Fornhals, et al., 1286; Ray M. Hamilton, 1309; David R. Mitchell, 1315; William C. Carter, 1365; Florence Reider, 1401, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent

H. Leet Parsons, 865; Edward Abert, 890; Mrs. James O’Brien, 914; James Ledwith, Susan Ledwith and Clement Ledwith, 932; Richard Hoyt Moore, 940; Wm. Donaldson, 941; J. J. Hill, 942; Clara Still, 949; Joseph Bibo, 950; Martha Hoeft, 951; James M. Langston, 952; Ben F. Bowlby, 954; Chicago Poultry Breeders Ass’n., a Corporation, 894; Julius M. Shreve, 1223; Catherine Hofreiter, 955; John Bibo, Julia Bibo and Anna Bibo, 992; Z. Kerley, 1016; Foreman Trust and Savings Bank, Guardian of the Estate of Allen Williams, a Minor, 1038; William E. Stillwell, 1047; James Warren Lytle, 1059; E. W. Ellis, 1072; Roy H. Browning, 1074; Wm. Carter, 1129; J. A. Stubblefield, 1202; Joseph D. Means, 1239; Glenson Myers, 1252; Clarence C. Cox and Minnie J. Cox, 1291; O. G. Fornhals, et al., 1286; Ray M. Hamilton, 1309; David R. Mitchell, 1315; William C. Carter, 1365; Florence Reider, 1401, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

Opinion filed April 25, 1929.

Oscar E. Caelstrom, Attorney General; Frank R.= Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Per Curiam:

The above entitled cases come before the court at this time upon the motion of the Attorney General to show cause why the cases should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.

*192It appears that notice has been given to all of the claimants in the above entitled cases. Since no appearance or response appears upon the record from any of the above named claimants, the court is of the opinion that they are in default. Therefore, it is the order of the court that each and all of the above entitled cases are hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.