Dollar v. International Banking Corp.

ALLEN, P. J.

The complaint filed in this action alleges that defendant is a corporation organized for the transaction of a general banking business in every and any place that it shall find convenient, and at all times mentioned was so engaged in such business at San Francisco, California, Hongkong, and Shanghai in China; that in due course of business a corporation known as the American Commercial Company deposited in Hongkong with defendant two thousand Mexican dollars, and that defendant promised to return the same, together with interest thereon at the rate of five per cent per annum, one year thereafter, and thereupon executed and delivered to said depositor a written certificate of deposit in the words and figures following:

“Notice of withdrawal given 26 November, 1904, due 26 November, 1905.

“International Banking Corporation.

“Deposit Beceipt.

“Not transferable.

“2,000 Locally. Hongkong, 26 November,. 1904.

“Beceived from Messrs. The American Commercial Company, Dollars Two Thousand Locally as a deposit repayable here, bearing interest at the rate of five per cent per annum, to remain until twelve months notice on either side expires. “No. 3/134.

“For the International Banking Corporation. . “L. L. FESPNEB. CHAS. C. B. SCOTT,

“Accountant. Manager.”

And on the back of said receipt the following words in print:

“The within sum cannot be drawn, unless this receipt is returned, signed by the Depositors; nor can the amount be

[86]

drawn against in separate sums by cheque or draft. The interest will cease at the expiration of notice of withdrawal.”

It is further averred that the words “not transferable” appearing at the top of said receipt were not intended by the parties to restrict its assignability, or to impair the right of the depositor to transfer the same and the obligation to repay, but that the sole purpose was to render the same nonnegotiable; that the effect of such words under the laws, usages and customs in such matters at Hongkong on the date of said receipt was to destroy the negotiability of an instrument otherwise negotiable. That on November 1, 1905, the depositor, through its manager, assigned said certificate to