National Bank v. Uptown State Bank

3 Citing cases

  1. Uptown State Bank v. U.S. Fidelity, Etc., Co.

    7 N.E.2d 354 (Ill. App. Ct. 1937)

    In the defense of this case the attorneys for the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company appeared for the Uptown State Bank. When judgment was rendered in this case against the Uptown State Bank, and appealed, counsel for the insurance company appeared in this case on behalf of the Uptown State Bank. Thereafter, when the judgment in favor of the National Bank of the Republic against the Uptown State Bank was affirmed by the Appellate Court of Illinois, 273 Ill. App. 401, and petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was denied, the insurance company refused to pay the judgment, and thereupon the plaintiff paid the sum of $5,136 in satisfaction of the judgment and costs rendered in favor of the National Bank of the Republic in said proceedings and demanded that the defendant reimburse plaintiff for its loss. This was refused and the plaintiff thereupon instituted the present litigation, to recover its loss upon the bond.

  2. Graham v. White-Phillips Co.

    296 U.S. 27 (1935)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that one who is willfully blind to notice of defect in title is not acting in good faith under holder in due course statute

    The argument is that this amounted to approval of the construction placed upon the statute by the Appellate Court. The point is not well taken. National Bank v. Uptown State Bank, 273 Ill. App. 401, (1934) construed the statute differently, and made no reference to the earlier case. We cannot know upon what ground certiorari was denied.

  3. LaRue v. Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co.

    6 N.E.2d 284 (Ill. App. Ct. 1937)   Cited 1 times

    Both plaintiff and defendant tried the case upon this theory; they are therefore bound by their attitude upon that question in the trial court. National Bank of Republic of Chicago v. Uptown State Bank, 273 Ill. App. 401. The controlling issue upon this record is whether defendant, at the time plaintiff received his injury, was engaged in interstate transportation, or in work so nearly connected with it as to be a part thereof. If the evidence in the record sustains the verdict of the jury on this issue, then the judgment should be affirmed. If there is no evidence tending to show this ultimate fact, then the judgment should be reversed.