A Compilation of Full Text Cases for Negotiable Instruments Law

was entitled to P98,000 of the Philippine Fiber and Produce Company's dividend for the year 1917. George B. Wicks, treasurer of the Company, requested that a telegraphic transfer of $45,000 to the plaintiff in New York City. Wicks drew and delivered a check for the amount of P90,355.50, total cost of said transfer, including exchange and cost of message which was accepted by the officer selling the exchange in payment of the transfer in question. As evidence of this transaction a document was made out and delivered to Wicks, which is referred to by the bank's assistant cashier as its official receipt. On the same day the Philippine National Bank dispatched to its New York agency a cablegram for $45,000. However, the bank's representative in New York replied suggesting the advisability of withholding this money from Kauffman. The PNB dispatched to its New York agency another message to withhold the Kauffman payment as suggested. Meanwhile, upon advice of Wicks that the money has been placed to his credit, Kauffman presented himself at the office of the Philippine National Bank in New York and demanded the money. By this time, however, the message from the Philippine National Bank directing the withholding of payment had been received in New York, and payment was therefore refused. Thus the present complaint to recover said sum, with interest and costs. ISSUE: WON Act No. 2031 is applicable in the above case? HELD: NO. The provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law to come into operation, there must be a document in existence of the character described in section 1 of the Law; and no rights properly speaking arise in respect to said instrument until it is delivered. In the case before us there was an order transmitted by the defendant bank to its New York branch, for the payment of a specified sum of money to George A. Kauffman. But this order was not made payable "to order or "to bearer," as required in Section 1(d) of that Act; and inasmuch as it never left the possession of the bank, or its representative in New York City, there was no delivery in the sense intended in Section 16 of the same Law. In this connection it is unnecessary to point out that the official receipt delivered by the bank to the purchaser of the telegraphic order, and already set out above, cannot itself be viewed in the light of a negotiable instrument, although it affords complete proof of the obligation actually assumed by the bank.

Meaning and Definition of Negotiable Instrument: The word " negotiable" means "transferable from one person to another by mere delivery or by endorsement and delivery, in return for consideration, and " instrument" means a written document creating a right in favor of some person, which may be a duty for another". Therefore a 'negotiable instrument' is  A written document  Signed by the maker or drawer of the instrument  That contains an unconditional promise or order to pay  A fixed amount of money (with or without interest which may be a specified amount or at a specified rate)  Payable on demand or at a specified exact future date  To a specific person or to order or to its bearer In other words, it is a piece of paper which contains some value and is transferable by simple delivery or sometimes by endorsement and delivery.As per Section 13(a) of the Act, "Negotiable instrument means a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to bearer, whether the word "order" or " bearer" appear on the instrument or not." Characters tics of Negotiable Instruments 1) Writing and Signed by Its Maker: A negotiable instrument being an instrument must be in writing and signed by its maker. Therefore an oral promise to pay certain sum at a future date without any written document is not enforceable in the eyes of law. Similarly, if the maker does not sign the instrument, it is not a valid negotiable instrument. 2) Unconditional: A negotiable instrument contains an unconditional promise or order to pay some money. Therefore if payment of money is conditional to the completion of some condition, then, it is not a valid negotiable instrument. 3) Fixed Sum of Money: A negotiable instrument is a promise to pay a fixed sum of money only, which may include interest at a fixed rate. Any promise to pay an uncertain sum will not make a valid negotiable instrument. 4) Transferable: A negotiable instrument is transferable easily from one person to another any number of times. The instrument is freely transferable, either by delivery when it is payable to the bearer of the document, or by endorsement and delivery when the document is payable to order. Transferability is an essential feature of negotiable instruments, but all transferable instruments are not negotiable instruments. 5) Absolute And Good Title: The transferee of a negotiable instrument who receives it in good faith and for value gets the instrument free from all defects. He gets an absolute and good title, irrespective of any defect in the title of the transferor.

Oregon law review, 1979

The author wishes to thank Professor Andrew L. Kaufman of the Harvard Law School for his comments on an earlier draft of this Article. 1 "'Bank' means any person engaged in the business of banking." U.C.C. §1-201 (4). All references herein to the Uniform Commercial Code are to both the 1962 and 1972 official texts. 2 " 'Issue' means the first delivery of an instrument to a holder or a remitter." U.C.C. § 3-102(1) (a). 3 "Any writing to be a negotiable instrument. .. must (a) be signed by the maker or drawer; and (b) contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money ... ; and (c) be payable on demand or at a definite time; and (d) be payable to order or to bearer." U.C.C. § 3-104(1) (a)-(d). 4 A writing which complies with the requirements of U.C.C. § 3-104 (1) is "a 'draft' ('bill of exchange') if it is an order." U.C.C. § 3-104(2) (a). An "order" is a direction to pay that identifies the person to pay with reasonable certainty. U.C.C. § 3-102(1)(b). 5 The classification, though adopted by the courts, is not backed by the provisions of article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Indeed, the Code neither uses the expression nor treats separately the subject of "banker's instruments."

1994

1994

2004

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender Properties Inc.

This leave to appeal application emanates from the order dated 09.09.2022 of the learned District Judge of Gampola. The Plaintiff Petitioner has filed an action against the Defendant-Respondents to get a declaration that the 1 st Defendants is not entitled to auction the property more fully described in the plaint and enjoining order to stay auction in the first instance and interim injunction to stay the auction till the case is fully adjudicated and order the Defendants to provide account details under chapter 37 of the Civil Procedure Code with regard to loan agreement and costs.

DePaul Journal of Business and Commercial Law, Vol …, 2007

This essay deals with one of the persistent problems in the law of negotiable instruments, namely the legal phenomenon of so-called "quasi-instruments" (it focuses on quasi-checks and deals briefly with quasi-notes.) First, it supplies a formal definition for quasi-instruments. It then proceeds to analyze the real-world interests, concerns and risks associated with quasi-checks, dealing respectively with those risks that are germane to banks, payors, payees, and subsequent holders. It proceeds on three levels:

The Dalhousie Law Journal, 1976