Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/49/234/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/49/234/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Wanzer v. Tupper, 49 U.S. 8 How. 234 234 (1850)
Wanzer v. Tupper
49 U.S. (8 How.) 234
Syllabus
By the statutes of Mississippi, the holder of an inland bill of exchange is entitled to recover of an endorser the amount due on the bill, with interest, upon giving the customary proof of default and notice. A protest is necessary only for the purpose of enabling him to recover the five percent damages given by the act.
The case of Bailey v. Dozier, 6 How. 23, confirmed.
It was an action brought by Wanzer upon a bill of exchange drawn by him upon Silverbury & Co., accepted by drawees, and endorsed by Tupper & Rollins to Wanzer.
The cause was tried in the circuit court in November, 1846, when the court refused to permit the bill, although admitted to be an inland bill of exchange, to be given in evidence to the jury, because there was no valid protest thereof.
It is unnecessary to state any further facts in the case.
