Associates Discount Corp. v. Frye

1 Citing case

  1. Tally Ho Associates, Inc. v. Worth Bank & Trust Co.

    637 N.E.2d 705 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994)   Cited 3 times
    In Tally Ho Associates v. Worth Bank Trust Co. (1994), Ill. App., 637 N.E.2d 705, the Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the trial court's finding of discharge under Illinois's version of UCC 3-605, determining that the evidence was conflicting and thus, properly left to the fact-finder to decide if the presumption had been rebutted.

    ( Commercial Credit Co. v. Maxey (1937), 289 Ill. App. 209, 7 N.E.2d 155; see also Selimos v. New Tom's Restaurant Co. (1950), 340 Ill. App. 417, 91 N.E.2d 909 (abstract of opinion) (possession of negotiable instrument by debtor creates rebuttable presumption that instrument was paid).) On conflicting evidence, the issue of whether a party has been discharged of his obligation on a note is one of fact. Associates Discount Corp. v. Frye (1947), 330 Ill. App. 427, 71 N.E.2d 175 (abstract of opinion); 28 Ill. L. Prac. Negotiable Instruments ยง 302, at 566-67 (1957). In this case, Tally Ho's claims against Worth Bank are dependent on proving that Halleran was obligated to pay the note at the time of Worth Bank's alleged misconduct in 1984.