(concurring specially).
I concur, adding this comment: The evidence supports the finding of the trial court that the 10 checks totaling $24,668.03 were presented for payment by C. I. T. when it knew that there were neither funds nor credit in the account of the maker (Parsley) to pay them, which fact was not known to the plaintiff bank. This is so because the bank relied on the promised acceptance by C. I. T. of the 13 drafts it had reecived the same day totaling $29,223.65.
The item of $3,554.27 which was allowed as an offset against the $24,668.03 which the bank lost by mistakenly paying the 10 checks, has no relationship to that figure whatsoever. It represents the total of four of the dishonored sight drafts (which are assumed to be retail transactions) and which the bank returned to Parsley in connection with its receipt of the $21,000 note and chattel mortgage. The further fact with respect to these particular four transactions is that after they were returned to Parsley, he turned them over directly to C. I. T. who accepted them and will realize the proceeds on those contracts from the purchasers of the cars named therein. It thus seems clear that C. I. T. is not entitled to any offset of the $3,554.27 against the loss the bank suffered in cashing the checks.
I also agree that the $7,792.57 (the figure on the books of the bank showing Parsley’s account on January 10) was improperly allowed as an offset against the judgment. This is so because it bears no relationship *421to the actual loss of the plaintiff bank and is merely a fictitious figure representing the amount that would have been in the Parsley account had the $29,223.65 in drafts been honored by defendant C. I. T. However, it does not necessarily follow that no deduction at all should be allowed. Between January 6 and January 10, 1953, the 10 checks upon which the bank seeks recovery were paid. It was also within this period of time that the drafts were dishonored by the defendant. It appears from the record that during this time Parsley made deposits into his account other than the drafts which were subsequently dishonored. Thus the bank balance of $7,-792.57 is made up partly of the false credit of the dishonored drafts and partly of bona fide credits deposited by Parsley.
The record and documentary evidence before us indicates that Parsley’s bank balance on January 6, plus his bona fide credits, less certain checks drawn on the account (other than those to C. I. T.) equals $3,236.95. This is the figure which should properly be deducted from the $24,668.03, leaving a net judgment of $21,431.08 plus interest and costs.
WORTHEN, J., having disqualified himself, does not participate. HENRIOD, J., does not participate.