Case Name: BALTIMORE COMMERCIAL BANK vs. JACOB S. SHAPIRO et al.
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1922-06-23
Citations: 141 Md. 563
Docket Number: 
Parties: BALTIMORE COMMERCIAL BANK vs. JACOB S. SHAPIRO et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland Reports
Volume: 141
Pages: 563–564

Head Matter:
BALTIMORE COMMERCIAL BANK vs. JACOB S. SHAPIRO et al.
Trade Acceptance — Certification.
Since a certification of a trade acceptance releases the maker and endorser from liability thereon, held that it was proper, in an action against the maker thereon, to refuse a prayer offered by plaintiff which was based entirely on the fact that such a certification had been cancelled, without submitting the question whether the bank had a right of cancellation.
Decided June 23rd, 1922.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Baltimore City (Cortee, C. J.)
Action by the Baltimore Commercial Bank against Jacob S. Shapiro and Harry T. Murray, co-partners, trading as the United Iron and Metal Company. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
The cause was argued before Boyd, O. J., Briscoe, Thomas, Pattison, Fewer, Stockbridge, Adkins, and Qfptttt, JJ.
^Edward F. Johnson, with whom was Roland R. Morchard on the brief, for the appellant.
Isaac Lobe Straus and Jacob M. Moses, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Stockbridgke, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is a companion to Ho. 14 (ante, p.554) argued at this term, and is a suit brought by the holder of the trade acceptance referred to in that case against the makers. The case was tried on the same testimony as in Ho. 14, and the facts are fully stated in the opinion in that case. It is not necessary to add anything' to the views therein expressed, except, with regard to the particular prayers offered in this case. We are of the opinion that the action of the lower court in refusing the plaintiff's prayers was correct, in that they are based entirely upon the cancellation of the certification in question without srubmitting, under proper instructions, the question of the propriety or right of cancellation by the certifying bank, since by such certification, unless a right of cancellation existed and was exercised in accordance with such right, the maker and endorsers of such instrument were released from all...liability thereon. Code,'art. 13, sec. 207; Scheffenacker v. Hoopes, 113 Md. 117.
The judgment of the lower court is accordingly affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Araaire, J., dissents.