///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////.

1. FACTS: Dennis Bowling was a friend and neighbor of DavidDabney. Bowling had no indication thatDabneywas financially troubled. Indeed, by all evidence,Dabneywas quite well off: he owned four grocery stores; he drove a Cadillac; his wife owned a new sports car; he had race horses and lived in an expensive home. In the fall of 1983,Dabneyadmitted to Bowling that he had "cash flow" problems and borrowed $40,000 from Bowling. At the same time,Dabneyproposed they become partners in his grocery business, and discussions concerning this prospect ensued over the following weeks. At one point,Dabneyasked Bowling for a signed blank check that would bedepositedwith a new grocery supplier as "security" and would never be used without Bowling's consent. If it was,Dabneypromised, he would reimburse Bowling's account appropriately. Shortly thereafter,Dabneydated and filled out Bowling's blank check for $10,606.79 and gave the check to his major supplier and creditor, E.Bierhaus& Sons.DabneyowedBierhausmore than $400,000 for past deliveries; and after having received ten to twenty bad checks fromDabney,Bierhausrequired cash or cashier's checks fromDabneyfor any deliveries.Dabneyhad toldBierhausabout the supposedly imminent partnership with Bowling, and under those circumstances,Bierhaus'sagent accepted the $10,606.79 check from Bowling in payment for a delivery of groceries. Bowling's check was returned toBierhaus, as there were insufficient funds in Bowling's account to cover it. By this time,Dabneyhad filed for bankruptcy protection.Bierhaussought to collect the amount of the check from Bowling.
2. RULE/RESOLUTION: [E.Bierhaus& Sons v. Bowling, 486 N.E.2d 598 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1985)] How did the court answer the questions?What did the court decide?