Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

McIntyre v. Harris

Illinois Court of Appeals
709 N.E.2d 982 (1999)


Facts

In October 1996, Total Home, a company owned by Brian McIntyre (plaintiff), provided Sandra Bennett with a price quote for the repair of her roof. McIntyre told Bennett that she would need to write a $2,000 check to Total Home for the repair. Bennett wrote the check. McIntyre then wrote Bennett a check for $2,000, which he postdated October 28, explaining to Bennett that she could cash the check in the event that the roof work was not completed by that date. Thereafter, McIntyre deposited Bennett’s check into his business account at Twin Oaks Savings Bank (Bank) (defendant). The roof repair was not completed by October 28. Nonetheless, McIntyre directed the Bank to stop payment on the check to Bennett. Shortly thereafter, the Bank mistakenly disregarded McIntyre’s order and paid out the check. When McIntyre learned that the money had been withdrawn, he told the Bank’s executive vice president, Robert Harris (defendant), that the account would be overdrawn. As a result, McIntyre executed a written agreement with the Bank whereby the Bank would leave the $2,000 in his account as long as McIntyre paid the Bank the $2,000 sum plus interest by July 1. McIntyre never completed payment to the Bank. McIntyre later brought suit against the Bank and Harris, claiming that he had been improperly coerced into signing a promissory note after the Bank withdrew $2,000 from his account despite his valid stop-payment order. The Bank counterclaimed, seeking the $2,000 payment. The trial court ruled in favor of the Bank and Harris, finding that the Bank was properly subrogated to the rights of Bennett and was therefore entitled to recovery from McIntyre. McIntyre appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Lytton, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 219,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.