Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PNB V Picornell

    Uploaded by

    Einstein Newton
    426 views1 page
    (1) Picornell bought tobacco on behalf of HTV and obtained money from the bank by drawing a bill of exchange, which HTV accepted; (2) HTV later claimed some of the tobacco was damaged and refused to pay the bill; (3) The bank, as a holder in due course, is entitled to payment even if there was a partial lack of consideration between Picornell and HTV; (4) Both Picornell, as the drawer, and HTV, as the acceptor, are liable to pay the bank, as the holder, for the full value of the unpaid bill of exchange.

    Original Description:

    k

    Original Title

    pnb v picornell

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    (1) Picornell bought tobacco on behalf of HTV and obtained money from the bank by drawing a bill of exchange, which HTV accepted; (2) HTV later claimed some of the tobacco was damaged and refused to pay the bill; (3) The bank, as a holder in due course, is entitled to payment even if there was a partial lack of consideration between Picornell and HTV; (4) Both Picornell, as the drawer, and HTV, as the acceptor, are liable to pay the bank, as the holder, for the full value of the unpaid bill of exchange.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    426 views1 page

    PNB V Picornell

    Uploaded by

    Einstein Newton
    (1) Picornell bought tobacco on behalf of HTV and obtained money from the bank by drawing a bill of exchange, which HTV accepted; (2) HTV later claimed some of the tobacco was damaged and refused to pay the bill; (3) The bank, as a holder in due course, is entitled to payment even if there was a partial lack of consideration between Picornell and HTV; (4) Both Picornell, as the drawer, and HTV, as the acceptor, are liable to pay the bank, as the holder, for the full value of the unpaid bill of exchange.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PNB V.

    PICORNELL Issue:
    Whether Picornell and HTV are liable to reimburse the
    46 PHIL 716 bank on the bill it advanced to pay for the Tobacco.
     FACTS: Held:
    Picornell  followed  the  instructions  of  Hyndman,  Tavera  Yes, HTV cannot escape liability in view of section 28 of the
    and  Venutra  by buying bales of tobacco.  He was able to Negotiable Instruments Law. The drawee by acceptance
    obtain in National Bank a sum of money together with his becomes liable to the payee or his indorsee, and also to
    commission.  He drafted a bill of exchange against the firm the drawer himself. But the drawer and acceptor are the
    and in favor of the bank.  It was received by National Bank immediate parties to the consideration, and if the
    and was accepted thereafter by the firm.  However, on acceptance be without consideration, the drawer cannot
    alleged conditions of the tobacco, the bill of exchange was recover of the acceptor. The payee holds a different
    not paid. relation; he is a stranger to the transaction between the
      drawer and the acceptor, and is, therefore, in a legal sense
    a remote party. In a suit by him against the acceptor, the
    question as to the consideration between the drawer and
    HELD: the acceptor cannot be inquired into. The payee or holder
    gives value to the drawer, and if he is ignorant of the
    This action for recovery is for the value of the bill of equities between the drawer and the acceptor, he is in the
    exchange.  The firm accepted the bill unconditionally but position on a bona fide indorsee. Hence, it is no defense to
    did not pay it at maturity, wherefore its responsibility to a suit against the acceptor of a draft which has been
    pay the same is clear.  The question whether or not the discounted, and upon which money has been advance by
    tobacco  was  worth  the  value  of  the  bill  doesn’t  the plaintiff, that the draft was accepted or the
    concern  the  bank.    Such partial  want  of  consideration  accommodation of the drawer.
    if  it  was,  doesn’t  exist  with  respect  to  the bank which
    paid Picornell the full value of the said bill  of exchange.  As to Bartolome Picornell, he warranted, as drawer of the
    The bank was a holder in due course, and was such for bill, that it would be accepted upon proper presentment
    value full and complete.  and paid in due course, and as it was not paid, he became
    The firm cannot escape liability. liable to the payment of its value to the holder thereof,
    which is the plaintiff bank. The fact that Picornell was a
    commission agent of HTV, in the purchase of the tobacco,
    does not necessarily make him an agent of the company in
    PNB vs Picornell 46 Phil 716, 26 Sept 1922, G.R. No.  L-
    its obligations arising from the drawing of the bill by him.
    18751 His acts in negotiating the bill constitute a different
    Facts: contract from that made by his having purchased the
    Picornell, following instruction of Hyndman, Tavera & tobacco on behalf of HTV. Furthermore, he cannot exempt
    Ventura (HTV), bought in bales of tobacco; that Picornell himself from responsibility by the fact of his having been a
    obtained from the branch of the National Bank in Cebu a mere agent of this company, because nothing to this effect
    sum of of money to the value of the tobacco, together was indicated or added to his signature on signing the bill.
    with his commission, drawn the following bill of exchange.
    The invoice and bill of lading were delivered to the
    National Bank with the understanding that the bank
    should not delivered them to HTV except upon payment of
    the bill; The invoice and bill of lading was delivered and
    accepted by HTV who proceeded to the examination of the
    tobacco. HTV wrote and cable to Picornell, notifying him
    that of the tobacco received, there was a certain portion
    which was no use and was damaged. After a number of
    communication between Picornell and HTV, HTV refuse to
    pay the bill and instruct the bank to dispose and sell the
    tobacco. The Bank sold the tobacco for the amount less of
    the bill it advanced. The bank demand payment for the
    said balance which Picornell and HTV refused to pay,
    hence this case.

    You might also like