Offended party was qualified for the entirety of P98,000 from the surplus income of Philippine Fiber and

Produce Company (PFPC) which was set shockingly on the organization's books. The PFPC treasurer
asked for from PNB Manila that a transmitted exchange of S45,000 ought to be made to the offended
party in endless supply of PFPC. The treasurer drew and conveyed a check for the measure of P90,355 on
the PNB which is the aggregate costs o said exchange. As confirmation, an archive was made out and
conveyed to the PFPC treasurer which is alluded to by the bank's colleague clerk as it's authentic receipt.

Around the same time the Philippine National Bank dispatched to its New York organization a cablegram
to the accompanying impact:

Pay George A. Kauffman, New York, account Philippine Fiber Produce Co., $45,000. (Sgd.) PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, Manila.

Endless supply of the telegram, the bank's illustrative informed the withholding concerning the cash
from Kauffman, in perspective of his hesitance to acknowledge certain bills of the PFPC. The PNB
concurred and sent to its NY office another message to withhold the installment as proposed.

Endless supply of the PFPC treasurer that S45,000 had been placed surprisingly, he introduced himself at
the PNB NY and requested the cash however was declined because of the bearing of the withholding of
installment.

The request transmitted by PNB to its NY branch, for the installment of a predefined total of cash to the
offended party was not made payable "to arrange" or "to carrier", as required in subsection (d) of that
Act; and since it never left he ownership of the bank, or its delegate in NY, there was no conveyance in
the sense proposed in area 16 of a similar Law.

In association, it is superfluous to call attention to that the official receipt conveyed by the bank to the
buyer of the transmitted request can't itself be seen in the light of a debatable instrument, in spite of the
fact that it bears finish proof of the commitment really accepted by the bank.