Summary
In Gelman v. Wendrick (1944), 321 Ill. App. 639, 53 N.E.2d 479; Chandler v. Chandler (1945), 326 Ill. App. 670, 63 N.E.2d 272; and Jones v. Albee (1873), 70 Ill. 34, the attempted introduction of parol evidence was for the purpose of showing some verbal agreement between the parties that limited the makers' liability, not to clarify an instrument obviously ambiguous on its face.
Summary of this case from First Bank Trust Co. v. PostOpinion
Gen. No. 42,829. (Abstract of Decision.)
Opinion filed February 28, 1944
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, § 314 — inadmissibility of parol evidence to show that note was to be paid by corporation which had not signed it. In action on promissory note, brought against natural person by whom note was signed, held that parol evidence, offered by defendant, went merely to proposition that note was to be paid by corporation, which had not signed note, and not by defendant, and was inadmissible.
See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and section number.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. DANIEL P. TRUDE, Judge, presiding.
Affirmed upon remittitur; otherwise reversed and remanded. Heard in the first division, first district, this court at the October term, 1943.
Hoyne, O'Connor, Rubinkam Melaniphy, for appellant;
John C. Melaniphy, of counsel; Joseph H. Platt, for appellee.
Not to be published in full. Opinion filed February 28, 1944.