Lightner v. Roach

⁴⁷⁵ Constable, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant brought this suit to recover a balance due him as the payee of a promissory note dated the 21st day of November, 1908, made by one Charles H. Eoach and endorsed to the appellant by Charles E. Eoach, Alice V. Eoach and F. W. L. Eoach. The declaration, which was in assumpsit, contained three of the common money counts and a special count declaring against the three endorsers. The general issue plea was filed by the defendants.

At the close of the testimony a judgment of non pros, was entered, by direction of the appellant, as to Alice V. Eoach and E'. W. L. Eoach, and an additional count was filed by leave of the Court whereby Charles E. Eoach was declared against as an original promissor. Under instructions from the Court, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, Charles E. Eoach, and from the judgment thereupon entered this appeal has been taken. Of the several contentions made by the appellant, we will treat of but one, for, as that is the foundation stone of his right to recover, it will be decisive of the case.

The appellant testified that the note contained on the back thereof the names of the three endorsers when delivered to him; and that it was upon the faith and credit given by him -to the endorsers that it was received by him. There was no proof whatever offered as to notice of non-payment to the endorsers. The theory of the appellant is, that if one endorses a note before delivery to the payee or for the purpose of giving the maker credit, he is prima facie to be treated as a joint maker, and that notice of non-payment is not necessary to hold him liable; and cites authorities to that effect. That at one time this was the settled rule in Maryland, and a great many other jurisdictions, can not be questioned.

But by reason of the irreconcilable conflict of decisions growing out of the many questions raised over negotiable instruments, efforts were made, during the latter part of the last century, to ⁴⁷⁶ have enacted a uniform negotiable instruments act, and thus render certain and uniform the rights and obligations of parties to commercial paper. It is a matter of common knowledge that this has long been one of the labors of the American Bar Association, so that at the present time its members have secured the passage of such legislation in forty-three States in this country, all, practically, agreeing in effect, and in a great many instances agreeing verbatim. The Maryland Legislature adopted it in 1898 by Chapter 119, now codified as Article 13, sections 13-208. By section 82 of that Act it is provided as follows: “A person placing his signature upon an instrument otherwise than as maker, drawer or acceptor is deemed to be an endorser, unless he clearly indicates by appropriate words his