In January 1998, Allied Capital Partners, L.P. and American Factors Corporation were in the business of factoring accounts receivable for third-party clients. Allied assigned its factoring contract with Complete Design, Inc. to American but retained an interest in the factoring of Complete Design’s invoices. On January 25, 1998, in payment of invoices issued by Complete Design, Clark Wilson Homes, Inc., issued a check for $6,823.15. The check was payable to:

Complete Design

Allied Capital Partners, L.P.

2340 E. Trinity Mills Ste. 300

Carrollton, Texas 75006

On February 10, 1998, Clark Wilson issued another check for $26,329.32 made payable to:

Complete Design

Allied Capital Partners, L.P.

2340 E. Trinity Mills Ste. 300

Carrollton, Texas 75006

Complete Design deposited both checks in its account at Bank One. However, Allied and American received none of the proceeds of the checks.

Complete Design subsequently declared bankruptcy, and Allied and American made demand on Bank One for damages resulting from Bank One’s conversion of the two checks. Bank One denied all liability for conversion of the checks. Allied and American subsequently sued Bank One, asserting conversion. Bank One filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that, because it was ambiguous to whom the checks at issue were payable, they were payable upon a single indorsement. The trial court granted Bank One’s motion. Allied and American appealed. Who is correct here? Were both signatures necessary for a proper indorsement, or will one do? [Allied Capital Partners, L.P. v Bank One, Texas, N.A., 68 SW3d 51 (Tex App)]