Hopf v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

Hopf v. State

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 108, 1928 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 42

CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois

DecidedDecember 5, 1928

DocketNo. 1197

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 108 (Hopf v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Claims of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hopf v. State, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 108, 1928 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 42 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

The declaration in this case states: ‘ ‘ This claim is based on account of wild pheasants, protected under Illinois State Game Laws, scratching out and eating seed corn which necessitated four plantings and failure of crop for year 1925 and a loss of three hundred and sixteen dollars and seventy cents.” The Attorney General has filed a general demurrer to the declaration, but no briefs have been filed by either claimant or defendant.

Apparently claimant bases his right to an award upon the theory the State is liable for damages caused by wild birds and animals that are protected by the State- game laws.

The title to wild game and birds is in the State, and is held by it for the benefit of all the people of the State. Schulte v. Warren, 218 Ill. 108. The protection and preservation of wild game is a very common police regulation in all civilized countries and is justified on many grounds, one of which is for the purposes of food. American Express Co. v. The People, 133 Ill. 649. The protection of the pheasants in question being a proper exercise of its police powers by the State, claimant is not entitled to any compensation for the damages, if any, which he may have suffered consequent thereof.

The demurrer is sustained and the case dismissed:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

The declaration in this case states: ‘ ‘ This claim is based on account of wild pheasants, protected under Illinois State Game Laws, scratching out and eating seed corn which necessitated four plantings and failure of crop for year 1925 and a loss of three hundred and sixteen dollars and seventy cents.” The Attorney General has filed a general demurrer to the declaration, but no briefs have been filed by either claimant or defendant.

Apparently claimant bases his right to an award upon the theory the State is liable for damages caused by wild birds and animals that are protected by the State- game laws.

The title to wild game and birds is in the State, and is held by it for the benefit of all the people of the State. Schulte v. Warren, 218 Ill. 108. The protection and preservation of wild game is a very common police regulation in all civilized countries and is justified on many grounds, one of which is for the purposes of food. American Express Co. v. The People, 133 Ill. 649. The protection of the pheasants in question being a proper exercise of its police powers by the State, claimant is not entitled to any compensation for the damages, if any, which he may have suffered consequent thereof.

The demurrer is sustained and the case dismissed:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 108, 1928 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopf-v-state-ilclaimsct-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack