please answer correctly in 3-5 sentences for both short scenerios (23.1) and (47.1).

thank you!

*P.S i pasted photos together in the order that both scenerios needs to be read *

23.1 Payable Jointly Murray Walter, Inc. (Walter, Inc.), was a general contractor for the construction of a waste treatment plant in New Hampshire. Walter, Inc., contracted with H. Johnson Electric, Inc. (Johnson Electric), to install the electrical system in the treatment plant. Johnson Electric purchased its supplies for the project from General Electric Supply (G.E. Supply). Walter, Inc., issued a check payable to "Johnson Electric and G.E. Supply" in the amount of $54,900, drawn on its account at Marine Midland Bank (Marine Midland). Walter, Ine., made the check payable to both the subcontractor and its material supplier, to be certain that the supplier was paid by Johnson Electric. Despite this precautionary measure, Johnson Electric negotiated the check without G.E. Supply's indorsement, and the check was paid by Marine Midland. Johnson Electric never paid G.E. Supply. G.E. Supply then demanded payment from Walter, Inc. When Walter, Inc. learned that Marine Midland had paid the check without G.E. Supply's indorsement, it demanded to be reimbursed. When Marine Midland refused, Walter, Inc., sued Marine Midland to recover for the check. Was Johnson Electric's indorsement sufficient to legally negotiate the check to Marine Midland Bank? Murray Walter, Inc. v. Marine Midland Beal 47.1 Mislaid Property Alex Franks was a guest staying at a Comfort Inn in Searcy, Arkansas, while he was working on a highway project. Franks found a bundle of money in plain view in the left part of the left drawer in the dresser in his room. Franks notified the hotel manager, who notified the police. The police took custody of the money and discovered that the carefully wrapped bundle contained $14,200 in eash-46 \$100 bills and 480 \$20 bills. Franks sued to recover the eash. J.K. Kazi, the owner of the hotel, joined the lawsuit, also claiming the money. Franks argued that the money was lost property and therefore that he, as the finder, was entitled to it. Kazi argued that the money was mislaid property and that he, as the owner of the premises on which the money was found, was entitled to the money. The trial eourt held that the money had been mislaid and awarded the money to Kazi, the hotel owner. Franks appealed. Was the money mislaid or lost property? Who receives the property? Franks v. Kai, 197 S.W.3d 5, 2004 Ark. App. Lexis 771 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2004)