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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 673 views

    MACDONALD v. NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NY G.R. No. L-7991. May 21, 1956

    Uploaded by

    SS
    1) Stasikinocey was a partnership formed by four individuals that operated Cardinal Rattan Factory. 2) The partnership had an overdraft account with National City Bank of NY and executed a chattel mortgage securing the loan with three vehicles. 3) MacDonald purchased two of the vehicles from the partnership but later sold them, claiming better title. National City Bank sued to recover on the loan and foreclose the mortgage.

    Copyright:

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

    MACDONALD v. NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NY G.R. No. L-7991. May 21, 1956

    Uploaded by

    SS
    673 views2 pages
    1) Stasikinocey was a partnership formed by four individuals that operated Cardinal Rattan Factory. 2) The partnership had an overdraft account with National City Bank of NY and executed a chattel mortgage securing the loan with three vehicles. 3) MacDonald purchased two of the vehicles from the partnership but later sold them, claiming better title. National City Bank sued to recover on the loan and foreclose the mortgage.

    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?

    1) Stasikinocey was a partnership formed by four individuals that operated Cardinal Rattan Factory. 2) The partnership had an overdraft account with National City Bank of NY and executed a chattel mortgage securing the loan with three vehicles. 3) MacDonald purchased two of the vehicles from the partnership but later sold them, claiming better title. National City Bank sued to recover on the loan and foreclose the mortgage.

    Copyright:

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

    MACDONALD v. NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NY G.R. No. L-7991. May 21, 1956

    Uploaded by

    SS
    1) Stasikinocey was a partnership formed by four individuals that operated Cardinal Rattan Factory. 2) The partnership had an overdraft account with National City Bank of NY and executed a chattel mortgage securing the loan with three vehicles. 3) MacDonald purchased two of the vehicles from the partnership but later sold them, claiming better title. National City Bank sued to recover on the loan and foreclose the mortgage.

    Copyright:

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

    MACDONALD v. NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NY G.R. No. L-7991.

    May 21, 1956

    PAUL MACDONALD, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK,
    Respondent.

    - Stasikinocey is a partnership formed by Alan Gorcey, Louis da Costa, William Kusik and
    Emma Gavino. – registration denied by the SEC due to a confusion between the partnership
    Stasikinocey and Cardinal Rattan Factory
    - Cardinal Rattan is the business name or style used by Stasikinocey where Da Costa and
    Gorcey are the general partners
    - Da Costa is the managing partner of Cardinal Rattan
    - partnership Stasikinocey had an overdaft account (occurs when there isn't enough money in
    an account to cover a transaction or withdrawal, but the bank allows the transaction anyway)
    with Nationa City Bank of NY (foreign banking association duly licensed to do business in the
    Philippines)
    - due its failure in paying required payment, overdraft converted into an ordinary loan which
    corresponding promissory joint note non-negotiable was executed and secured by chattel
    mortgage
    - a chattel mortgage over 3 vehicles (Fargo truck, Fargo pick up and Plymouth Sedan)
    - during the subsistence of the loan and mortgage, vehicles were sold to MacDonald in 2
    different occasions
    - later on, MacDonald sold 2 of the 3 vehicles to Benjamin Gonzales
    - Upon learning of the transfers, NCBNY  CFI Mla suit to recover its credit and to foreclose the
    corresponding chattel mortgage
    - McDonald and Gonzales were made Defendants because they claimed to have a better right
    over the pledged vehicle
    CFI Mla – annulled the sale of vehicles; foreclosure and sale at public auction
    CA affirmed, but relieved Shaefer of obligation
    - Only MacDonald and Gonzales appealed

    ISSUE: w/n Stasikinocey is partnership by estoppel which chattel mortgage is binding to 3 rd


    persons

    HELD: Yes.
    1. Equitable principle of estoppel - an unregistered commercial partnership (de facto) like
    Stasikinocey has no juridical personality but the law considers as partnership in so far as it is a
    favorable to 3rd persons

    2. Da Costa and Gorcey acted as partners in all their transactions with the National City
    Bank

    3. McDonald cannot disclaim knowledge of the partnership Stasikinocey because he dealt


    with said entity in purchasing 2 of the vehicles in question through Gorcey and Da Costa.

    4. The sale of the vehicles to MacDonald being void, the sale to Gonzales is also void since a
    buyer cannot have a better right than the seller.

    5. Registration of the Chattel Mortgage is in accordance w/ Sec. 4 of CML


    (Behn Meyer & Co. vs. Rosatzin) where a partnership not duly organized has been recognized
    as such in its dealings with certain persons, it shall be considered as “partnership by estoppel”
    and the persons dealing with it are estopped from denying its partnership existence. If the law
    recognizes a defectively organized partnership as de facto as far as third persons are
    concerned, for purposes of its de facto existence it should have such attribute of a partnership
    as domicile.

    6. Both the Respondent and the Petitioners  all 3rd persons as regards the partnership
    Stasikinocey and even assuming that the Petitioners are purchasers in good faith and for
    value, the Respondent having transacted with Stasikinocey earlier than the Petitioners, it
    should enjoy and be given priority

    You might also like