Wicks, the treasurer of the Philippine Fiber and Produce Company (PFPC), presented himself in the exchange department of the Philippine National Bank in Manila and requested that a telegraphic transfer of $45,000 should be made to Kauffman in New York City, upon account of the PFPC.
Pay George A. Kauffman, New York, account Philippine Fiber Produce Co., $45,000. (Sgd.) PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Manila.
PNB’s representative in New York withheld the money from Kauffman, in view of his reluctance to accept certain bills of the PFPC. Kauffman demanded the money but was refused to be paid.
Whether or not Kauffman has a right of action based on Negotiable Instruments Law.
NO. Kauffman has no right of action based on Negotiable Instrument’s Law on the ground that it can only come into operation if there is a document in existence of the character described in Section 1 of the said Law, and rights properly speaking arise in respect to said instrument until it is delivered. In this case, there was an order transmitted by PNB to its New York branch, for the payment of a specified sum of money to Kauffman. But this order was not made payable “to order” or “to bearer,” as required in subsection (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. Kauffman, however, has remedy based on the Civil Code, particularly on stipulations pour atrui.