- 17 -
Colonial Bank through the same course of dealing with the
bank as was involved with the draft services described
above, or that petitioner's prior course of dealing with
the bank involved loans from the bank. Contrary to
petitioner's assertions, his prior course of dealing with
Colonial Bank was limited to the extension of provisional
credit for deposits into his account. The record of this
case shows that the bank officials who authorized the
provisional credit expected that the checks deposited into
petitioner's account reflected funds on deposit in another
banking institution and that the funds would be collected
in due course. The situation in the case of each of the
four worthless checks is different. There is no evidence
that the bank officials knew that the four checks were
worthless or that they intended to make loans to petitioner
when the checks were returned unpaid.
In an attempt to support their position that
Mr. Bradshaw's course of dealing with the bank involved
loans, petitioners point to the fact that Colonial Bank had
extended a line of credit to Motion, Inc., and the fact
that the line of credit was secured by the security
agreement that had been executed on March 18, 1987,
between Motion, Inc., and the bank. Furthermore, at one
point, petitioners' reply brief states: "Motion, Inc.
is a sole proprietorship of petitioner."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011