Which of the Following Was the Result in Mid-Atlantic Tennis

Which of the following was the result in Mid-Atlantic Tennis Courts Inc.,v.Citizens Bank and Trust Company of Maryland,the case in the text in which an employee of the plaintiff fraudulently deposited into his own account at the defending bank checks for which the plaintiff was payee,and the plaintiff sued the defending bank for checks endorsed by it "for deposit only" or with no endorsement?

A) The court ruled that because the defending bank was merely the depositary bank, it held no responsibility to the plaintiff.
B) The court ruled that because employee fraud was involved, the defending bank held no responsibility to the plaintiff.
C) The court ruled that because a fraud was involved, regardless of whether or not it was on the part of plaintiff's employee, the defending bank held no responsibility to the plaintiff.
D) The court ruled that the defending bank was liable to the plaintiff for checks bearing the endorsement "for deposit only," but not for the checks with no endorsement because as to those checks, the bank was entitled to assume that the depositor was entitled to deposit the checks.
E) The court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to recover from the bank for all the checks.