Bank of Taiwan v. Gorgas-Pierie Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | 2710. |
| Citation | 273 F. 660 |
| Parties | BANK OF TAIWAN, Limited, v. GORGAS-PIERIE MFG. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
John Franklin Shields and Frederic L. Clark, both of Philadelphia Pa. (Franklin H. Mills, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
David N. Fell, Jr., and Henry Spalding, both of Philadelphia, Pa for appellee Gorgas-Pierie Mfg. Co.
John Arthur Brown, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Union Nat Bank.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from an order of interpleader. The plaintiff-appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order is not final. The order aligns the parties prescribes the method of procedure, and-- as it will presently be seen-- finally denies to one of the parties the right to assert a contract obligation against another. We regard the order as final within the meaning of the statute, and, accordingly, deny the motion to dismiss the appeal. Killian v. Ebbinghaus, 110 U.S. 568, 4 Sup.Ct. 232, 28 L.Ed. 246; Standley v. Roberts, 59 F. 836, 8 C.C.A. 305; Hayward & Clark v. McDonald, 192 F. 890, 113 C.C.A. 368; McNamara v. Provident Sav. Soc., 114 F. 910, 52 C.C.A. 530; Huxley v. Pennsylvania Warehousing & Safe Deposit Co., 184 F. (C.C.A. 3d) 705, 106 C.C.A. 659.
The case has not advanced beyond pleadings. The main facts as pleaded are briefly these:
The Gorgas-Pierie Manufacturing Company bought of Nanyo Boyeki Kaisha, a Limited Company of Japan, a specified quantity of copra at a named price 'for shipment from the Orient by steamer during September or October, 1920,' payment by draft on a bank issuing a 'confirmed irrevocable letter of credit' in favor of the seller. Thereupon the Gorgas-Pierie Company procured from the Union National Bank of Philadelphia, and forwarded with the order, a letter of credit, dated August 15, 1920, addressed to the Nanyo Company in Japan. Its relevant parts are the following: * * *
'This Credit becomes void if not used on or before December 31, 1920.'
On authority of this letter of credit the Nanyo Company drew a draft for $42,643.13 in favor of the Bank of Taiwan, Limited, which, with the letter of credit and specified documents attached, that bank purchased for a valuable consideration without knowledge of defects in the documents and presented the same to the Union National Bank for payment. The Union National Bank refused payment at the direction of the Gorgas-Pierie Company on the assertion by the latter that shipment had not been made during September or October, 1920, as required by its contract with the Nanyo Company; that the bills of lading were falsely dated October 30, 1920; that as a matter of fact the vessel purporting to have issued them was not in port on that date; and that the goods were not shipped until November 4, 1920.
After the draft had been presented and payment refused the Gorgas-Pierie Manufacturing Company filed a bill in equity in the District Court against the Union National Bank of Philadelphia, the Bank of Taiwan, Limited, and Nanyo Boyeki Kaisha, Limited, charging the facts recited and praying for an injunction, preliminary and perpetual, restraining the Bank of Taiwan from demanding and the Union National Bank from paying the amount of the draft in question.
The Union National Bank was brought in by service; the Bank of Taiwan appeared gratis. The Nanyo Company was not served with process; neither did it appear.
The Union National Bank filed an answer in the nature of a cross-bill praying for an order that the Gorgas-Pierie Company and the Bank of Taiwan interplead. The Gorgas-Pierie Company, by its answer assented. The Bank of Taiwan, answering both the cross-bill and original bill, carefully preserved its legal status as the bona fide holder of a draft drawn on authority of a letter of credit issued by a bank and raised questions of law as to the sufficiency of the bills. There followed several arguments and opinions culminating in an order that the Gorgas-Pierie Company and the Bank of Taiwan interplead.
The theory on which the court directed the Bank of Taiwan to interplead with the Gorgas-Pierie Company instead of with the Union National Bank appears in the following excerpt from the opinion:
'Accepting the principle, which we do accept, that in cases of drafts drawn in accordance with a letter of credit, the obligation of the issuer of the letter of credit is measured by its terms and not by that of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Taylor
...Dodge v. Norlin, 8 Cir., 133 F. 363; Collins v. Miller, 252 U.S. 364, 368-370, 40 S.Ct. 347, 64 L.Ed. 616. 4 Bank of Taiwan v. Gorgas-Pierie Mfg. Co., 3 Cir., 273 F. 660, 661; cf. Standley v. Roberts, 8 Cir., 59 F. 836, 839, 840. 5 State of Texas v. Chuoke, 5 Cir., 154 F.2d 1, 2, certiorari......
-
Republic of China v. American Express Co.
..."stakeholder" is new in this Circuit. The Third and Eighth Circuits have held such an order appealable. See Bank of Taiwan v. Gorgas-Pierie Mfg. Co., 3 Cir., 273 F. 660; Huxley v. Pennsylvania Warehousing Co., 3 Cir., 184 F. 705; Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon National Bank, 8 Cir., 271 F. 928, ......
-
Rector v. United States
...future adjudication the matter of the lien and compensation of the old attorney held final and appealable. In Bank of Taiwan v. Gorgas-Pierie Mfg. Co., 273 F. 660 (C. C. A. 3), an order directing interpleader held final. The court (page 661) says: "The order aligns the parties, prescribes t......
-
Fisher v. Stevens Coal Co.
...should not be ordered, and if it is improperly ordered in such circumstances, it will be reversed on appeal: Bank of Taiwan v. Gorgas-Pierie Mfg. Co., 273 F. 660 (C. C. A.3d Circuit to E. D. of Pa.); Rauch v. Dearborn Nat. Bk., 79 N.E. 273 (Mass.); Stephenson & Coon v. Burdett, 48 S.E. 846 ......