First National Bank v. Colonial Bank
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
898 F.Supp. 1220 (1995)
Shelley International Marketing (Shelley) opened a checking account at First National Bank (First National) (plaintiff). Thereafter, World Commodities, Inc. (WC), a company composed of the same principals as Shelley, opened a checking account at Colonial Bank (Colonial) (defendant). Shelley and WC began engaging in check-kiting activities between the accounts. The check-kiting scheme involved a kiter opening checking accounts at different banks, writing checks against inadequate funds in one account, and then covering the deficiency by depositing a check written against insufficient funds in another account. On February 10, 1992, Shelley deposited various checks payable by Colonial, totaling approximately $1.5 million, into its First National account (Colonial checks). On the same day, WC deposited various checks payable by First National, also totaling approximately $1.5 million, into its Colonial account (First National checks). On February 11, the checks were presented to each bank for payment. Upon review of the Shelley account, a First National officer suspected check-kiting fraud. As a result, First National returned the First National checks to Colonial on February 12. Upon receipt of the checks, a Colonial officer investigated the transactions, knowing that Colonial could be liable for the sum of the Colonial checks unless the checks were returned to First National before midnight that day. Instead of risking angering WC by immediately returning the checks, Colonial took more time to investigate based on assurances by WC that the checks were good. After further discussions, Colonial returned the Colonial checks to First National the following day. First National brought suit against Colonial, arguing that Colonial was required to honor the Colonial checks because Colonial did not return the checks by the midnight deadline. Both parties moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Grady, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.