ank's liability is fixed.

Since the Bank had certified that check, such ceank's liability is fixed.

Since the Bank had certified that check, such certification is equivalent
to acceptance and petitioner bank as drawee bank is bound on the
instrument upon certification and it is immaterial to such liability in favor of
the plaintiff who is a holder in due course whether the drawer had funds or
not with the defendant-bank or the drawer was indebted to the bank for
more than the amount of the check.

The certifying bank has all the liabilities under Sec. 62 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law which refers to liability of acceptor. It may be
true that said check was actually not funded but rtification is equivalent to
acceptance and petitioner bank as draank's liability is fixed.

Since the Bank had certified that check, such certification is equivalent
to acceptance and petitioner bank as drawee bank is bound on the
instrument upon certification and it is immaterial to such liability in favor of
the plaintiff who is a holder in due course whether the drawer had funds or
not with the defendant-bank or the drawer was indebted to the bank for
more than the amount of the check.

The certifying bank has all the liabilities under Sec. 62 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law which refers to liability of acceptor. It may be
true that said check was actually not funded but wee bank is bound on the
instrument upon certification and iankank's liability is fixed.
 Since the Bank had certified that check, such certification is equivalent
to acceptance and petitioner bank as drawee bank is bound on the
instrument upon certification and it is immaterial to such liability in favor of
the plaintiff who is a holder in due course whether the drawer had funds or
not with the defendant-bank or the drawer was indebted to the bank for
more than the amount of the check.

The certifying bank has all the liabilities under Sec. 62 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law which refers to liability of acceptor. It may be
true that said check was actually not funded but 's liability is fixed.

ank's liability is fixed.

Since the Bank had certified that check, such certification is equivalent
to acceptance and petitioner bank as drawee bank is bound on the
instrument upon certification and it is immaterial to such liability in favor of
the plaintiff who is a holder in due course whether the drawer had funds or
not with the defendant-bank or the drawer was indebted to the bank for
more than the amount of the check.

The certifying bank has all the liabilities under Sec. 62 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law which refers to liability of acceptor. It may be
true that said check was actually not funded but

Since the Bank had certified that check, such certification is equivalent
to acceptance and petitioner bank as drawee bank is bound on the
instrument upon certification and it is immaterial to such liability in favor of
the plaintiff who is a holder in due course whether the drawer had funds or
not with the defendant-bank or the drawer was indebted to the bank for
more than the amount of the check.

The certifying bank has all the liabilities under Sec. 62 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law which refers to liability of acceptor. It may be
true that said check was actually not funded but dant-bank or the drawer
was indebted to the bank for more than the amount of the check.

The certifying bank has all the liabilities under Sec. 62 of the
Negotiable Instruments Law which refers to liability of acceptor. It may be
true that said check was actually not funded but