Definition
"IIL" does not appear to be a recognized standalone legal term. The source fragment associated with this entry — "218, 62 N. E. 542, 56 L. R. A. 465, 88 Am. St. Rep. 156" — is a case citation string, not a dictionary definition. This strongly suggests that "IIL" as submitted represents a scanning or indexing artifact: either a misread running header, a page marker, a corrupted entry boundary, or a volume/section label from the source dictionary that was captured in error rather than a substantive term.
No definition can be responsibly generated for this entry as submitted.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working with digitized historical legal dictionaries — including Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) — will encounter artifacts of this kind with some regularity. Optical character recognition (OCR) errors, damaged page headers, and imprecise corpus segmentation can cause page numbers, reporter citations, or section markers to be captured as apparent headwords. The citation fragment here (62 N.E. 542) points to a real reported case in the Northeastern Reporter, but that citation belongs to a substantive entry elsewhere in the dictionary, not to a term called "IIL."
If you are attempting to locate the actual entry this citation was part of, the correct research path is to identify which term in Black's 2nd Ed. appears at page 218 and is supported by 62 N.E. 542. The Law Mind corpus may allow you to search by page reference or neighboring headwords to recover the intended entry.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary (2nd Ed.) provides no substantive definition under this string. The fragment "218, 62 N. E. 542, 56 L. R. A. 465, 88 Am. St. Rep. 156" is a citation cluster typical of Black's 2nd Ed. editorial style, where definitions are supported by parallel reporter citations across multiple series (N.E. for Northeastern Reporter, L.R.A. for Lawyers' Reports Annotated, Am. St. Rep. for American State Reports). This citation pattern is not itself a term of art.