A bank customer purchased a bank money order and paid for it with a forged check. The money order was negotiable and was acquired by N, who was a holder in due course. When N sued the bank on the money order, the bank raised the defense that its customer had paid with a bad check. Could this defense be raised against N? Why or why not? [Bank of Niles v American State Bank, 303 NE2d 186 (Ill App)]