Dollar

Dollar v. International Banking Corp.

Good Law
13 Cal. App. 331·1910 Cal. App. LEXIS 185·109 P. 499
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 28, 1910Civ. No. 771.California3,800 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 333 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 334 This is an action by the assignee of the indorsee of a deposit receipt to recover the value in United States money of two thousand Mexican dollars deposited with the banking-house of the defendant corporation, located in Hongkong, China. Judgment was for plaintiff against the banking corporation, and the latter appeals from the judgment and the order denying its motion for a new trial. The depositor, the American Commercial Company, was incorporated in the District of Columbia for the purpose of *Page 335 doing a general brokerage business wherever such business could be lawfully conducted. Its certificate of incorporation, dated August 13, 1904, provides that "the concerns of the company for the first year shall be managed by not less than three nor more than fifteen directors, namely" (naming five persons, as to whom it is important here to say only that one is "E. Edwards"). The main office is…

addendum Opinion

Appellant presents a petition for a rehearing on this appeal wherein, among other things, exception is taken to the following language contained in the opinion of this court, filed April 28, 1910, to wit: "No objection was made to the introduction of this testimony, but the incompetency of parol evidence to vary a writing may be considered as a matter of law." In support of the contention that this is not a correct declaration of the law a number of cases are cited to sustain the proposition that, in the absence of objection, secondary evidence is sufficient to support the findings of a court based thereon. The rule declared by this court is entirely distinct from that applied in those cases. Whether or not a contract in writing may be varied by parol evidence is a question of substantive law, while the admission or rejection of secondary evidence is governed by the rules of evidence. (1 Greenleaf on Evidence, 16th ed., sec. 305a.) Where a contract is reduced to writing, whether required by law to be written or not, the writing supersedes all other negotiations and stipulations concerning the matter made at the time or prior thereto. (Civ. Code, sec. 1625 ) If the terms as agreed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.