- 8 -
drawn by petitioner in the same approximate amount. Based
thereon, the bank alleged that petitioner and Motion, Inc.,
"are accountable and liable for the amount of the checks in
question." Colonial Bank's claim for reimbursement states
as follows:
7. Plaintiff [i.e., Colonial Bank] has informed
the Defendants Motion, Inc. and R.H. Bradshaw
that the Defendants are accountable to Plaintiff
for the amount of the checks in question and
demanded that the Defendants reimburse Plaintiff
for the sum of $886,026.00. Despite the demand
to pay Plaintiff, the Defendants have failed and
refused and still fail and refuse to pay
Plaintiff.
8. Plaintiff is in possession of the checks
with endorsement supplied by Plaintiff pursuant
to section 4.205 Tex. Bus. Comm. Code and were
delivered by R.H. Bradshaw to Plaintiff. Plain-
tiff took the checks for value, in good faith,
and without notice that they were overdue or had
been dishonored or of any defense against the
claim to them on the part of any person. By
reason thereof, Plaintiff is a holder in due
course. A copy of the August 14, 1989 checks
and the August 15, 1989 check is attached as
Exhibits "A", "B" and "C".
Colonial Bank's petition included another group of
allegations entitled "JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF SECURITY
INTEREST" under which Colonial Bank sought to recover the
amount of its loss from Motion, Inc., through foreclosure
of the bank's security interest in all of the assets of,
and payments due to Motion, Inc. Those allegations are as
follows:
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