Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bank of China v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co. (Two Cases)

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided December 21, 1953No. 13413_1Published

1DissentHarris, District Judge

I cannot agree with the majority holding that the Wells Fargo be required to pay a substantial sum of interest to the Bank. The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

The allowance of interest is predicated upon the assertion that Wells Fargo “chose not to rely upon the protection offered by Section 953 of the California Financial Code.”1

The record affirmatively shows that Wells Fargo did not have, nor could it exercise, a choice of either fact or lav/ at the time the demand was made upon it. The code section referred to obviously could not afford any claimed protection, for the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Republic of China v. American Express Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1952
  2. Conner v. Bank of BakersfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Bank of China v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1952
  4. Bank of China v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1951
  5. Bank of China v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1950

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API