Sentel v. James

2 Citing cases

  1. Jacobsen v. Conlon

    14 Ill. App. 3d 306 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973)   Cited 6 times

    ) ( 68 Ill. App.2d 260, 263-264. Accord, Sentel v. James (1958), 16 Ill. App.2d 373, 148 N.E.2d 22.) In Pope v. Speiser (1955), 7 Ill.2d 231, 130 N.E.2d 507, also relied upon by the plaintiff, the plaintiff placed valuable improvements on the defendant's farm with the knowledge and consent of the defendant and after repeated statements by the defendant that the farm would belong to the plaintiff upon the defendant's death.

  2. Calacurcio v. Levson

    68 Ill. App. 2d 260 (Ill. App. Ct. 1966)   Cited 17 times
    In Calacurcio v. Levson (1966), 68 Ill. App.2d 260, 215 N.E.2d 839, cited by the plaintiff, the court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to an equitable lien on real estate owned by the defendant based on the finding "that plaintiff had expended his own money for the improvement of property belonging to the Levsons and that he did so at their request."

    While the cases they cite make such statements, they are dealing in situations clearly distinguishable from that before us. Crane v. Caldwell, 14 Ill. 468. [1-6] The trend of modern decisions is to hold that in the absence of an express contract, a lien based upon the fundamental maxims of equity may be implied and declared by a court of equity out of general considerations of right and justice as applied to the relationship of the parties and the circumstances of their dealing, Sentel v. James, 16 Ill. App.2d 373, 148 N.E.2d 22. An equitable lien is the right to have property subjected in a court of equity to payment of a claim. It is neither a debt nor a right of property, but a remedy for a debt.