lien upon claim in Illinois

1959Section 29 by its second clause does not grant a right to the employee, but merely provides a lien or a means of indemnification for the employer whose freedom from negligence may be regarded as a justification for giving him a lien upon the claim which the injured person has for full damages for his injury against the person whose *625 negligence caused it." Similar views have been expressed in Gones v. Fisher, 286 Ill. 606 ; Huntoon v. Pritchard, 371 Ill. 36 and followed in Kelas v. William Ganschow Co. 228 Ill.

1959Section 29 by its second clause does not grant a right to the employee, but merely provides a lien or a means of indemnification for the employer whose freedom from negligence may be regarded as a justification for giving him a lien upon the claim which the injured person has for full damages for his injury against the person whose negligence caused it.” Similar views have been expressed in Gones v. Fisher, 286 Ill. 606 ; Huntoon v. Pritchard, 371 Ill. 36 and followed in Kelas v. William Ganschow Co. 228 Ill.

1959Section 29 by its second clause does not grant a right to the employee, but merely provides a lien or a means of indemnification for the employer whose freedom from negligence may be regarded as a justification for giving him a lien upon the claim which the injured person has for full damages for his injury against the person whose *625 negligence caused it." Similar views have been expressed in Gones v. Fisher, 286 Ill. 606 ; Huntoon v. Pritchard, 371 Ill. 36 and followed in Kelas v. William Ganschow Co. 228 Ill.

1959Section 29 by its second clause does not grant a right to the employee, but merely provides a lien or a means of indemnification for the employer whose freedom from negligence may be regarded as a justification for giving him a lien upon the claim which the injured person has for full damages for his injury against the person whose negligence caused it.” Similar views have been expressed in Gones v. Fisher, 286 Ill. 606 ; Huntoon v. Pritchard, 371 Ill. 36 and followed in Kelas v. William Ganschow Co. 228 Ill.

1959App. 189 ; McNaught v. Davis, 229 Ill.

1959App. 189 ; McNaught v. Davis, 229 Ill.

1959Section 29 by its second clause does not grant a right to the employee, but merely provides a lien or a means of indemnification for the employer whose freedom from negligence may be regarded as a justification for giving him a lien upon the claim which the injured person has for full damages for his injury against the person whose *625 negligence caused it." Similar views have been expressed in Gones v. Fisher, 286 Ill. 606 ; Huntoon v. Pritchard, 371 Ill. 36 and followed in Kelas v. William Ganschow Co. 228 Ill.

1959Section 29 by its second clause does not grant a right to the employee, but merely provides a lien or a means of indemnification for the employer whose freedom from negligence may be regarded as a justification for giving him a lien upon the claim which the injured person has for full damages for his injury against the person whose negligence caused it.” Similar views have been expressed in Gones v. Fisher, 286 Ill. 606 ; Huntoon v. Pritchard, 371 Ill. 36 and followed in Kelas v. William Ganschow Co. 228 Ill.

2023The apparent owner in such a case, however good his title, holds it subject to the result of the suit, and cannot convey it, pending the suit, except subject to whatever decree may be rendered.” Id. at 509-10 . -9- In light of Mills, the relation back rule is unnecessary to preserve decisions such as County Collector of Lake County.

1931(Schreiber v. Chicago and Evanston Railroad Co. 115 Ill. 340 .) The effect of filing a petition for condemnation creates no different situation from that produced by the beginning of any other suit involving a lien upon or claim of title to the land superior to that of an apparent owner of the title in possession, whether he has an unincumbered title in fee or not.

1915Louis and Hannibal Railway Co. 250 Mo. 624 ,) and the only question in this case is the amount which he is entitled to recover.