St. Charles Nat. Bank v. Ford
| Decision Date | 16 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--288,75--288 |
| Citation | 39 Ill.App.3d 291,349 N.E.2d 430 |
| Parties | , 19 UCC Rep.Serv. 1178 ST. CHARLES NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LeRoy FORD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Donat & Donat, Peter M. Donat, Batavia, for defendant-appellant.
David G. Neri, St. Charles, for plaintiff-appellee.
This was a civil action brought by the plaintiff, St. Charles National Bank against defendant LeRoy Ford based on five promissory notes signed by the defendant. Summary judgment was given by the Circuit Court of Kane County against defendant.
The defendant, LeRoy Ford, wished to buy into a business known as R and S Sheet Metal Company, then owned by one Russell Dalrymple. Mr. Dalrymple was at that time in financial trouble, and the plaintiff, the St. Charles National Bank, was contemplating taking action upon the notes of Mr. Russell Dalrymple, then being held by the plaintiff bank. On April 1, 1974, the defendant, Ford and Russell Dalrymple met with William Birtwistle, Vice President and Trust Officer of the St. Charles National Bank. At that time, the defendant, Ford, represented to Mr. Birtwistle that he owned a home valued at $60,000.00 and further that he was to receive approximately $80,000.00 in the near future for the sale of his interest in a trucking firm. Further, he informed Mr. Birtwistle that he wished to purchase a half interest in the R and S Sheet Metal Company, and that an attorney was in the process of drawing up the partnership papers and that to induce the Bank to preclude any action that was being contemplated in regard to the notes of Russell Dalrymple, Ford would sign the notes of Dalrymple as they came due, to insure their payment. This was aggreeable to Mr. Birtwistle, who then approved a loan of $2,000.00 in the form of note UI 9490, which was signed by defendant Ford and Russell Dalrymple. Thereafter, the defendant, signed the other notes. On April 29, 1974, defendant, Ford, requested a further loan of $2,000.00 from the plaintiff, the St. Charles National Bank. The loan was extended in the form of note UI 9647, in the amount of $2,000.00 signed by the defendant, and Russell Dalrymple. Subsequently, it appears that the partnership between the defendant and Russell Dalrymple, did not materialize, that there was a falling out between them. Numerous conferences were held at the Bank concerning the payment of the notes. After a period of time, it appeared to the plaintiff, Bank, that the defendant would not honor his signature on the above stated notes, and therefore on November 7, 1974, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant, which alleged that the defendant signed the notes contained in the Complaint, that the plaintiff was the owner and holder of notes, that the notes were past due, and prayed judgment in the amount of $8,150.00.
Thereafter, the defendant answered the above mentioned Complaint and denied all the allegations of the Complaint except admitting the paragraph stating that the notes were marked as exhibits, and the paragraph which stated that the plaintiff was the owner and holder of the notes. The defendant's Answer also alleged that he received no consideration for the notes, and that the defendant signed only as an accommodation party.
Following defendant's Answer, the plaintiff submitted a Motion for Summary Judgment, which included copies of the notes, Complaint and Answer, along with a supporting Affidavit of Mr. William Birtwistle, Officer of the plaintiff Bank. Plaintiff's Motion stated there was no genuine issue as to certain facts: these facts being that the action was on certain notes, singed by the Defendant, which were past due; that the defendant admitted signing the notes; that the defendant states and admits he is an accommodation party; that defendant received consideration, but regardless, lack of consideration would be no defense of accommodating party, and that these facts establish as a matter of law the defendant has no defense to the action. Mr. Birtwistle's supporting Affidavit stated that on April 1, 1974, the defendant, LeRoy Ford, along with Mr. Russell Dalrymple, met with William Birtwistle at the bank, and that the defendant said that he was buying into a business to become a partner with Mr. Dalrymple, and that an attorney was in the process of drawing up the papers. The Affidavit further states the defendant would sign the notes of Mr. Dalrymple as they came due, so as to preclude the Bank foreclosure of the notes, and that the defendant did sign said notes.
Thereafter the defendant submitted unverified written objections to the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and an Affidavit. The objections listed the facts that were not contested as being the notes that were in issue; that they were past due; that the defendant signed them, and that he signed as an accommodation party. Further, defendant's objection stated the additional fact that on April 1, 1974 the defendant, Mr. Dalrymple, and Mr. Birtwistle met at the bank, and the defendant stated that he would sign the notes of Mr. Dalrymple as they became due; that he was going to buy into a business, and an attorney was supposed to draw the papers, but that he did not sign the notes as they came due, but signed them on that day at the bank. Further, that the defendant was mislead as to the present notes of Mr. Dalrymple, as he was only told of and led to believe that there were only four notes that he signed at the time--while Mr Dalrymple knew he had present notes at the St. Charles National Bank of at least $16,000.00, that if Mr. Birtwistle didn't know of all Mr. Dalrymple's notes, he should have known about them, and that the defendant was misled at the time he signed the notes. Hearing was held, thereafter, and on April 24, 1975 the Motion for Summary Judgment was granted by the Court, which found for the plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of $8,000.00 plus interest and costs, and judgment was entered thereon, from which this Appeal is taken.
It was formerly the rule that the signature of a party to an instrument after its execution has been completed by delivery and the entire consideration has passed between the original parties, that is, the undertaking of one not a party to the original transaction who signs in pursuance of some subsequent arrangement, is a new and independent contract, and, to be binding, must be supported by a new and independent consideration from that of the original contract. This rule applied to one who subsequently signs as surety, guarantor, indorser or comaker. 11 Am.Jur.2d, Bills and Notes, sec. 240; 28 I.L.P. Negotiable Instruments, § 51.
Under the Commercial Code, sec. 3--415(2), the obligation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Columbia Nat. Bank of Chicago
...as a matter of law that Illinois courts would imply an obligation of good faith in this case. See St. Charles Nat'l Bank v. Ford, 39 Ill.App.3d 291, 295, 349 N.E.2d 430, 434 (2d Dist.1976) ("the contract of suretyship imports entire good faith and confidence between the parties in regard to......
-
Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n v. Schildgen
...judgment because they do not constitute defenses to an action for foreclosure on a mortgage. See St. Charles National Bank v. Ford (1976), 39 Ill.App.3d 291, 294-96, 349 N.E.2d 430, 433-34. The first affirmative defense whereby defendant Schildgen contends that plaintiff must first request ......
-
First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Racine v. Notte
...today has been accepted or applied by other courts as well. Sumitomo Bank Of California v. Iwasaki, supra; St. Charles National Bank v. Ford, 39 Ill.App.3d 291, 349 N.E.2d 430 (1976); Investment Service Co. v. Allied Equities Corp., 519 F.2d 508 (9th Cir. 1975) (applying Oregon law); St. Pe......
-
Continental Bank, N.A. v. Everett
...404 N.E.2d 1026, 1030 (2d Dist.1980). So, too, Illinois expects guarantors to inquire into risks. St. Charles National Bank v. Ford, 39 Ill.App.3d 291, 295, 349 N.E.2d 430, 434 (2d Dist.1976). If Guilford and the guarantors wanted to know whether a broadcast license may be used as collatera......