The plaintiff appealed from this decree, and this court affirmed the judgment in favor of Mary Schultz as to the personal check on the ground that the plaintiff had not met its burden of proving that Mary Schultz had not suffered a loss as a result of its failure to provide timely notice that the check had been dishonored, but reversed and remanded the judgment as to the cashier's checks for further proceedings on the ground that the trial court had not made sufficient findings of fact to sustain its conclusion that Mary Schultz was a holder in due course of the checks. See Bank of Lyons v. Schultz (1971), 1 Ill. App.3d 495, 275 N.E.2d 277. On February 16, 1972, which was after the remand, Mary Schultz filed a petition seeking release of the $30,000 that remained on deposit with the clerk of the circuit court.
The bank appealed, and the appellate court remanded to the trial court to determine whether the plaintiff was a holder in due course. ( Bank of Lyons v. Schultz (1971), 1 Ill. App.3d 495.) On remand the trial court found the plaintiff was a holder in due course and again dismissed the third count.