Court Opinion

ID: 9529659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:53:06.333206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:53.175738
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GREEN, specially concurring: I concur with the determination that the judgments of the trial court should be affirmed. I agree that the jury could have found that Edward Martin did not receive any of the proceeds of the loan. However, that would not mean that there was no consideration for his execution of the note as maker. Consideration for the undertaking of the obligations of a note may be furnished by payment of money to a third party. (Restatement of Contracts §75(2) (1932).) That appears to be a possible explanation of what happened here as evidence showed that the proceeds of the loan were deposited to the account of Martin Supply Company. The jury could have so found. If so, Edward Martin would have been an accommodation maker, not liable to the party accommodated and between the two, parol evidence was. admissible to show the accommodation. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 26, par. 3 — 415. I do not agree that section 103 of the Business Corporation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 32, par. 157.103) places all of the same restrictions on foreign corporations doing business in Illinois as upon domestic corporations when the internal affairs of the corporation are involved. We need not decide whether the provisions of section 42.4 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 32, par. 157.42 — 4) are applicable to foreign corporations because the jury here could have determined that (1) the transaction involved here was not a loan to Edward Martin, or (2) Edward Martin was not a director. I agree that under the circumstances, parol evidence could be considered on these points. I agree that no error occurred in the giving of the instructions.