Illinois Compiled Statutes
810 ILCS 5/3-418 (2026)
Payment or acceptance by mistake
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/3-418)
(from Ch. 26, par. 3-418)
Sec. 3-418.
Payment or acceptance by mistake.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), if the drawee of a draft pays
or accepts the draft and the drawee acted on the mistaken belief that (i)
payment of the draft had not been stopped under Section 4-403 or (ii) the
signature of the drawer of the draft was authorized, the drawee
may recover the amount of the draft from the person to whom or for whose
benefit payment was made or, in the case of acceptance, may revoke the
acceptance. Rights of the drawee under this subsection are not affected by
failure of the drawee to exercise ordinary care in paying or accepting
the draft.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), if an instrument has been paid
or accepted by mistake and the case is not covered by subsection (a), the
person paying or accepting may, to the extent permitted by the law
governing mistake and restitution, (i) recover the payment from the person
to whom or for whose benefit payment was made or (ii) in the case of
acceptance, may revoke the acceptance.
(c) The remedies provided by subsection (a) or (b) may not be asserted
against a person who took the instrument in good faith and for value or who
in good faith changed position in reliance on the payment or acceptance.
This subsection does not limit remedies provided by Section 3-417 or 4-407.
(d) Notwithstanding Section 4-215, if an instrument is paid or accepted
by mistake and the payor or acceptor recovers payment or revokes acceptance
under subsection (a) or (b), the instrument is deemed not to have been paid
or accepted and is treated as dishonored, and the person from whom payment
is recovered has rights as a person entitled to enforce the dishonored
instrument.
(Source: P.A. 87-582; 87-1135.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case, 2016–2016 · leading case: First Am. Bank v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 842 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2016).
First Am. Bank v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 842 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2016). “” 810 ILCS 5/3-418(c). The lawyer and the two banks reasonably believed that they were engaged in the innocent, commonplace banking activity of forwarding a check to its intended final recipient on behalf of their clients.”
— 810 ILCS 5/3-418(c) — 1 case
First Am. Bank v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 842 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2016). “” 810 ILCS 5/3-418(c). The lawyer and the two banks reasonably believed that they were engaged in the innocent, commonplace banking activity of forwarding a check to its intended final recipient on behalf of their clients.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|