Tinsley v. Durfey
Appellate Court of Illinois
Bill to Enforce an Equitable Lien. —Error to the Circuit Court of Vermilion County; the Hon. Ferdinand W. Bookwalter, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1900.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
2Per curiam
The main question at issue in this case and the only one we shall discuss is whether an equitable lien existed in favor of the complainants. Upon the disputed question of facts, the testimony supports the findings of the master and the court.
Tinsley owed the complainants $2,000, for negotiating the trade between him and Hankey. Having failed to pay in cash and refusing to convey to Durfey so that.he could hold the title to the land as security for the debt, as he had promised, he executed a contract by which he agreed to give them the exclusive control of the sale of the land and to…
Also in this document: Dissent.
3Cases cited3 opinions
- Ketchum v. St. LouisSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Donald & Co. v. HewittSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- Near v. DonnellyMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
4Cited by6 opinions
- McColgan v. Bank of California Assn.California Supreme Court · 1929
- International Trust Co. v. Palisade Light, Heat & Power Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1915
- Alexander v. Sherwood Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1913
- Beck v. HowardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1920
- Walker v. ShrakeNevada Supreme Court · 1959
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.