Singer v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd.

58 N.E.2d 726, 293 N.Y. 542, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 1286
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 30, 1944
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 58 N.E.2d 726 (Singer v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Singer v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., 58 N.E.2d 726, 293 N.Y. 542, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 1286 (N.Y. 1944).

Opinion

Lewis, J.

The Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd., to which it will be convenient to refer as Yokohama Specie ”, is a banking corporation incorporated under the laws of the. Empire of Japan and was formerly licensed' by the respondent Superintendent of Banks to transact a limited banking business in the State of New York. Under that license Yokohama Specie was permitted to maintain in this State an agency for the trans: action of such a banking business. On December 8, 1941, after a state of war had been declared to exist between the United States and Japan, the Superintendent of Banks, acting pursuant to section 606 of the Banking Law, took possession *547 for the purpose of liquidation of the business, property and affairs of Yokohama Specie within the State of New York and suspended the operation of its New York Agency. While such liquidation was in process the plaintiff asserted his right as a creditor of the New York Agency under an assignment from Standard Vacuum Oil Company — to which reference will be made as ‘ Standard ’ ’— and filed with the Superintendent of Banks on November 21, 1942, a claim for $557,561.25 against funds of the New York Agency in the possession of the Superintendent. That claim, based upon facts which are not here in dispute and are presently to be considered, was rejected by the Superintendent of Banks upon the ground that applicable law afforded no basis for its payment.

As a means to enforce his claim, the plaintiff instituted the present suit, wherein, upon motion by the defendant at Special Term, the action was severed to permit its continuance against Yokohama Specie and the complaint was dismissed against the Superintendent of Banks. The Appellate Division has granted to the plaintiff leave to appeal from its order unanimously affirming the judgment entered at Special Term and has certified that a question of law is involved which should be reviewed by this court. That question of law arises from the following facts:

On August 27, 1941, Standard, through its Yokohama office delivered to Yokohama Specie in Japan the yen equivalent to $557,561.25 with instructions to pay that' dollar amount to Standard in New York. Two days later, on August 29, 1941, the assistant-treasurer of Standard in New York was advised by telephone by the cashier of the New York Agency of Yokohama Specie that the New York Agency had received from Yokohama Specie the telegraphic transfer of $557,561.25 which amount was available for payment to Standard. In response to this advice the assistant-treasurer of Standard stated to the cashier of the New York Agency that Standard was making the necessary application to the United States Treasury Department for a license which would permit the payment by the New York Agency to Standard. On September 2, 1941, Standard received at its New York office the following confirmatory letter:

*548 “ The Yokohama Specie Bank, Limited
New York Agency
Equitable Building
New York, August 29th, 1941.
Standard Vacuum Oil Company
10 Broadway
New York City
New York.
Gentlemen : Att. Mr. Mitho:
Referring to our telephone conversation of today, we wish to advise you that we have received telegraphic instructions from our Yokohama Office to pay you the sum of $557,561.25. We understand that you are filing an application with The Treasury Department of the U. S. A. for a License in order to permit us to make this payment to you.
Awaiting your reply regarding this matter, we remain
Yours very truly,
The Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd.
(signature illegible)
p. p.. Agent ”

During the preparation by Standard of the application to the Treasury Department a representative of Standard was advised by telephone by a representative of the New York Agency that the payment would be made to Standard from funds of the New York Agency on deposit with Guaranty Trust Company of New York.

Before any payment was made by the New York Agency to Standard there occurred the attack by Japan at Pearl Harbor. Then followed the declaration of war and promptly thereafter the Superintendent of Banks took possession of the funds of the New York Agency and proceeded to liquidate the same pursuant to section 606 of the Banking Law. That statute, after Specifying grounds upon which the Superintendent may take possession of the business and property in this State of a foreign banking corporation, provides in part: “ 4 (a) * * * the claims of creditors of such corporation arising oiit of transactions had by them with its Neiv York agency or agencies or whose names appear as creditors on the books of such agency or agencies shall be preferred against the assets of such corpora *549 tian in this state without prejudice to their right to share in the other assets of such corporation.” (Italics supplied.)

Our problem is concerned chiefly with the interpretation and application of the italicized portion of the statute quoted above.

The plaintiff concedes that neither his name nor the name of his assignor, Standard, appears as a creditor on the books of the New York Agency of Yokohama Specie. However, the plaintiff asserts that, within the provisions of section 606, subdivision 4, paragraph (a), its assignor, Standard, had a transaction with the New York Agency the details of which, when considered together, were sufficient in law to qualify for payment the claim in suit.

The Superintendent of Banks has thus far successfully maintained that the deposit by Standard with Yokohama Specie in Japan and the subsequent telegraphic instructions by Yokoiiama Specie to its New York Agency, followed by the communications, mentioned above, from that Agency to Standard in New York, did not create enforcible rights in favor of Standard arising out of a transaction by Standard with such Agency within the terms of section 606, subdivision 4, paragraph (a) of the Banldng Law.

Prior to December 8, 1941, the date when the declaration of war caused the Superintendent of Banks to take possession of the business and property of Yokohama Specie in New York, the Superintendent had issued to that foreign corporation a statutory license under which it was permitted “ * * * to maintain an agency [in the City of New York] for the purpose of transacting the business of * * * receiving money for transmission or transmitting the same by * * * cable or otherwise * * * ”. When on August 27, 1941, Yokohama Specie at its home office in Japan accepted funds from Standard it thereby became indebted to Standard in the amount then deposited.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Southwestern Shipping Corp. v. National City Bank
160 N.E.2d 836 (New York Court of Appeals, 1959)
In re Schauren
3 Misc. 2d 1038 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1956)
In re the Accounting of Mulligan
203 Misc. 363 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1952)
Perutz v. Bohemian Discount Bank in Liquidation
279 A.D. 386 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1952)
In re the Liquidation of Yokohama Specie Bank
200 Misc. 610 (New York Supreme Court, 1951)
In re the Accounting of United States Trust Co.
199 Misc. 711 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1950)
Lyon v. Singer
339 U.S. 841 (Supreme Court, 1950)
Propper v. Clark
337 U.S. 472 (Supreme Court, 1949)
Banque Mellie Iran v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd.
85 N.E.2d 906 (New York Court of Appeals, 1949)
Singer v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd.
85 N.E.2d 894 (New York Court of Appeals, 1949)
Heyden Chemical Corp. v. Clark
85 F. Supp. 949 (S.D. New York, 1948)
Clark v. Chase Nat. Bank
82 F. Supp. 740 (S.D. New York, 1948)
Clark v. Propper
169 F.2d 324 (Second Circuit, 1948)
In re the Estate of Gruen
1 Misc. 2d 41 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1948)
Cable & Wireless, Ltd. v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd.
191 Misc. 567 (New York Supreme Court, 1948)
H. P. Drewry v. Onassis
188 Misc. 912 (New York Supreme Court, 1947)
Thos. Cook & Son, Inc. v. Bell
188 Misc. 523 (New York Supreme Court, 1947)
Iran v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd.
188 Misc. 346 (New York Supreme Court, 1946)
Singer v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Limited, Bell
60 N.E.2d 842 (New York Court of Appeals, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 N.E.2d 726, 293 N.Y. 542, 1944 N.Y. LEXIS 1286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singer-v-yokohama-specie-bank-ltd-ny-1944.