CO537-(1262-1649) — Page 257

00042

1

cms

Ref.:

CO 537/1374

THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

N

restrictions. Further information is given in the enclosed Terms and Conditions of supply of National Archives' leaflet.

Please note that this copy is supplied subject to the National Archives' terms and conditions and that your use of it may be subject to copyright

-14-

42

Bank of Louisiana (99 m. Dec. 734) was as follows, and so it had no

similarity with the present case;

"That case does not property support these views. There, a real payment of the amount of plaintiff's deposit had been made to the quarter-master in lawful money and the court declared that this payment necessar- ily released the bank. In other words, the sequestra- tion was actually made. But the delivery of confederate notes in discharge of an obligation arising from a deposit or lawful money is not a payment without the consent of the creditor."

Upon the other hand, the collection made by the Bank of Taiwan

of the credit of the plaintiff bank was not prompted by any military or

war necessity. The real creditor, even though an enemy, could not

There

realize it because its office was closed and was prohibited from doing

business and did not have in its possession the evidence of its credit,

since it had been taken by the Japanese military administration.

was no need, therefore, for the occupant to collect the amount of said

credit, the payment of which necessarily had to be made in Japanese

military notes, as everybody knows that during the occupation, without

limit, and without security, the Japanese military administration

manufactured and issued Japanese military notes, the acceptance of which

by the people was imposed through harsh order. For the same reason there

was no need to threaten with death those debtors of occupied banks who did

not settle their accounts.

The defendant alleges that the payment made by it to the Bank

of Taiwan, as liquidator of banks, has been declared valid by Commonwealth

Act, 727. This contention is without merit.

Firstly, because said act

No. 727 was disapproved by the President of the United States according to

official information received on April 1, 1946 (Vol. 42 0.0. 1434) and,

consequently, it is not now in force. Secondly, because the payment in

question was not made to the plaintiff bank, which is the creditor, but

to the Bank of Taiwan which did not have any authority to confiscate the

credit and collect the amount thereof. Thirdly, the personal or indiv-

idual opinion of any member of Congress, like Representative Bengson,

whom the defendant quotes, does not evince the real intention of the

legislative body that approved said law. Moreover, according to the

cited opinion of said representative, a case such as the present is

governed by Article 1164 of the Civil Code and not by Act No. 727.