Ill. Nat. Bank v. Chegin Ill. Nat. Bank v. Chegin

Ill. Nat. Bank v. Chegin

35 Ill.2d 375, 220 N.E.2d 226, IL.0000707(1966)

    • £0.49
    • £0.49

Publisher Description

This is a suit for specific performance brought by the Illinois National Bank, plaintiff-vendor, against June Chegin, defendant-vendee, to enforce a contract entered into on October 15, 1965, for the sale of a small apartment building situated in Springfield. Defendant had refused to perform the contract and in her pleading alleged that the abstract of title tendered by plaintiff did not show merchantable title for the reason that it did not negate the existence of liens, or possible liens, arising under the property forfeiture provisions of article 37 of the Criminal Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 38, art. 37.) The circuit court of Sangamon County granted plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered a decree of specific performance. Defendant has been allowed to appeal directly to this court pursuant to Rule 28-1E. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 110, par. 101.28-1E. By section 37-1 of the Criminal Code, which was added by an act approved July 2, 1965, the legislature has declared to be a public nuisance any building ""used in the commission"" of the offenses of murder, kidnapping, prostitution, theft, gambling, abortion, narcotics violations and other specified crimes, and has provided that any person convicted of knowingly maintaining such a public nuisance shall be subject to fine or imprisonment, or both. Section 37-2, which is titled ""Enforcement of Lien upon Public Nuisance,"" then goes on to provide: ""Any building, used in the commission of an offense specified in Section 37-1 of this Act with the intentional, knowing, reckless or negligent permission of the owner thereof, or the agent of the owner managing the building, shall, together with the underlying real estate, all fixtures and other property used to commit such an offense, be subject to a lien and may be sold to pay any unsatisfied judgment that may be recovered and any unsatisfied fine that may be levied under any section of this Article and to pay to any person not maintaining the nuisance his damages as a consequence of the nuisance. An action to enforce such lien may be commenced in any court of competent jurisdiction by the State's Attorney of the county of the nuisance or by the person suffering damages or both, except that a person seeking to recover damages must pursue his remedy within 6 months after the damages are sustained or his cause of action becomes thereafter exclusively enforceable by the State's Attorney of the county of the nuisance."" Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 38, pars. 37-1, 37-2.

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
1966
23 September
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
7
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SIZE
61.1
KB

More Books by Supreme Court of Illinois

The People v. Moriarty The People v. Moriarty
1962
People Ex Rel. Myers v. Briggs People Ex Rel. Myers v. Briggs
1970
The People v. Lego The People v. Lego
1965
Muhammad v. State Muhammad v. State
2001
Electro-Motive Div. v. Indus. Com. Electro-Motive Div. v. Indus. Com.
1952
County of Du Page v. Graham County of Du Page v. Graham
1985