Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    The Fidelity and Deposit Company vs. Wilson

    Uploaded by

    Nypho Pareño
    The lower court awarded ownership of $785 that was confiscated from Wilson to the intervenor H.D. Terrell, who claimed Wilson had ceded his rights to the money in payment of legal fees. The Supreme Court reversed, finding no delivery of the money had occurred, so Terrell had only a personal right to demand payment, not real ownership. A contract alone does not transfer ownership; tradition or delivery is required to transmit real rights over a thing. The confiscated funds should be paid to both the appellant surety company and Terrell according to the Supreme Court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    The Fidelity and Deposit Company vs. Wilson

    Uploaded by

    Nypho Pareño
    73 views2 pages
    The lower court awarded ownership of $785 that was confiscated from Wilson to the intervenor H.D. Terrell, who claimed Wilson had ceded his rights to the money in payment of legal fees. The Supreme Court reversed, finding no delivery of the money had occurred, so Terrell had only a personal right to demand payment, not real ownership. A contract alone does not transfer ownership; tradition or delivery is required to transmit real rights over a thing. The confiscated funds should be paid to both the appellant surety company and Terrell according to the Supreme Court's ruling.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The lower court awarded ownership of $785 that was confiscated from Wilson to the intervenor H.D. Terrell, who claimed Wilson had ceded his rights to the money in payment of legal fees. The Supreme Court reversed, finding no delivery of the money had occurred, so Terrell had only a personal right to demand payment, not real ownership. A contract alone does not transfer ownership; tradition or delivery is required to transmit real rights over a thing. The confiscated funds should be paid to both the appellant surety company and Terrell according to the Supreme Court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    73 views2 pages

    The Fidelity and Deposit Company vs. Wilson

    Uploaded by

    Nypho Pareño
    The lower court awarded ownership of $785 that was confiscated from Wilson to the intervenor H.D. Terrell, who claimed Wilson had ceded his rights to the money in payment of legal fees. The Supreme Court reversed, finding no delivery of the money had occurred, so Terrell had only a personal right to demand payment, not real ownership. A contract alone does not transfer ownership; tradition or delivery is required to transmit real rights over a thing. The confiscated funds should be paid to both the appellant surety company and Terrell according to the Supreme Court's ruling.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Article 1164

    The creditor has a right to the fruits of the thing from the time the obligation to deliver it arises.
    However, he shall acquire no real right over it until the same has been delivered to him.

    Real rights (jus in re)

    -  A power over a specific thing (like the right of ownership or possession) and is binding on the
    whole world. Non nudis pactis, sed traditionis dominia rerym transferatur.  As a consequence of
    certain contracts, it is not agreement but tradition or delivery that transfers ownership.

    Personal rights (jus in personam or jus ad rem)

    - Power demandable by one person of another – to give, to do or not to do.

    Need for Tradition or Delivery –


    The transfer of the ownership in the contract of such transfer, does not produce the effect by the fact
    of the mere consent, but is acquired by tradition and in the due observance of general precepts. A
    creditor or a vendee cannot acquire a real right when the obligation to deliver arises. He can only
    have a personal right to demand the delivery but no real rights until the said thing is delivered to him.
    A contract which is simulated or genuine one, where there is no delivery of the object, does not
    transfer ownership.

    TITLE
    THE FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND,
    plaintiff-appellant,
    vs.
    WILLIAM A. WILSON, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
    Hartigan, Marple, Rohde & Gutierrez for appellant.
    F.G. Waite and H.D. Terrell for appellees.
    MAPA, J.:
    FACTS:

    Defendant Wilson was, on the 1st of October, 1902, an employee of the Government of the
    Philippine Islands, as disbursing officer of the Bureau of Coast Guard and Transportation. For the
    security of the Government the plaintiff company and another company. The American Surety
    Company of New York, became sureties on the official bond of Wilson for the sum of $ 15,000,
    United State currency. Wilson defaulted in the sum of $ 8,931.80, United States currency, and the
    said two surety companies, after demand duly made upon them by the Government, were compelled
    to pay and, as a matter of fact, did pay to said Government, in accordance with said bond, the sum
    of $ 4,465.90, United States currency, each. Wilson, who had left the Philippine Islands, was
    captured in the city of Montreal, Canada, for the purpose of being tried before the courts of the
    Philippine Islands for the defalcation of said sum. When apprehended Wilson had on his person the
    sum of $ 785 in gold. On October 17, 1904, the plaintiff filed a complaint against Wilson the money
    that was confiscated from Wilson was transferred to the care of Mr. Branagan the Insular Treasurer.
    On October 26, 1904, H.D. Terrell filed a complaint as intervenor in the case, alleging that on
    September 3, of the same year, the defendant Wilson had ceded and transferred to the said Terrell
    all of his, the said Wilson's rights in and to the said $785 in payment on account of a larger sum then
    owed by said Wilson to the said H.D. Terrell for professional services already rendered and to be
    rendered as attorney for said Wilson. Terrell claims the right of ownership in and to the said sum and
    asks that the same be delivered to him as the legitimate owner to the exclusion of the other parties
    in the case. The Trial court rendered a decision in favour of Terrell awarding the rights to the money
    in question. The Plaintiff, The Fidelity and Deposit Company appealed  and said that the court erred
    in rendering judgment in favor of the intervenor H.D. Terrell for the $785 in the hands of the
    depositary. The Supreme court reversed the decision of the lower court and that the payment and
    delivery of said funds be made to Terrell and to the appellant.

    Issue
    Whether or not the lower court erred in granting the intervenor the ownership of the amount in
    question.

    Rulings
    " The ownership and other property rights are acquired and transmitted by law, by gift, by testate or
    intestate succession, and, in consequence of certain contracts, by tradition." And as the logical
    application of this disposition article 1095 prescribes the following: "A creditor has the rights to the
    fruits of a thing from the time the obligation to deliver it arises. However, he shall not acquire a real
    right." (and the ownership is surely such) "until the property has been delivered to him."

    Held
    Yes, because even thou the intervenor have a written agreement which was executed by the Wilson
    giving his rights, there was no delivery took place. Even he has a personal right to demand from
    Wilson the said agreement still he has no real rights over it until it is delivered to him.

    You might also like