Tingley Drilling Co. v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

Tingley Drilling Co. v. State

3 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1, 1916 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 1

Court of Claims of Illinois·Decided September 17, 1916·Published

Opinion

The statement of claims sets forth that W. G. Tingley, A. D. Bartholomew, W. S. Thompson, Q. D. Bailey and D. B. Carrithers, as commissioners, applied to the Secretary of State for a license to open hooks and accept subscriptions to the capital stock of a corporation to be- -known as The Tingley Drilling Company; that the commissioners paid to the Secretary of State a fee of fifty dollars, and that a license was issued to said commissioners, but that no subscriptions were received to said stock.

This claim must be rejected for the reason set forth in the case of William McKinley, R. W. Hood, and J. R. Ebersole v. State of Illinois, Vol. 2, Ct. of Cl. Rep. p. 125; the facts being identical with those considered therein.

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

The statement of claims sets forth that W. G. Tingley, A. D. Bartholomew, W. S. Thompson, Q. D. Bailey and D. B. Carrithers, as commissioners, applied to the Secretary of State for a license to open hooks and accept subscriptions to the capital stock of a corporation to be- -known as The Tingley Drilling Company; that the commissioners paid to the Secretary of State a fee of fifty dollars, and that a license was issued to said commissioners, but that no subscriptions were received to said stock.

This claim must be rejected for the reason set forth in the case of William McKinley, R. W. Hood, and J. R. Ebersole v. State of Illinois, Vol. 2, Ct. of Cl. Rep. p. 125; the facts being identical with those considered therein.

Tingley Drilling Co. v. State, 3 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1, 1916 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 1 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1916).

Pincite

3 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1 (Tingley Drilling Co. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.