Summary

John McLean McAfee v. Doremus — Opinion of the Court

The Farmers and Merchants' Bank of Memphis, 16 Pet., 89, in which the court held that 'the law of Mississippi is repugnant to the provisions of the act of Congress, giving jurisdiction to the courts of the United States.'
We see no objection, in principle or in practice, to the discontinuance of the suit against the drawers of the bill. Their liability was distinct from that of the indorser. In no respect could the indorser be prejudiced by the discontinuance. As a matter of course it was permitted at the cost of the plaintiffs.
Source: Wikisource

John McLean McAfee v. Doremus — Opinion of the Court

By the Louisiana acts of 1821 and 1827, the notary is required to record, in a book kept for that purpose, all protests of bills made by him and the notices given to the drawers or indorsers; a certified copy of which record is made evidence.
Under these statutes it is held, in Louisiana, that 'a certified copy of a protest is sufficient without producing the original.' Whittemore v. Leake, 14 La., 394.
It is admitted that in respect to foreign bills of exchange the notarial certificate of protest is of itself sufficient proof of the dishonor of a bill, without any auxiliary evidence.
Source: Wikisource

John McLean McAfee v. Doremus — Opinion of the Court

Be it enacted by the legislature of the State of Mississippi, that in all actions founded upon bills of exchange and promissory notes, the plaintiff shall be compelled to sue the drawers and indorsers living and resident in this State in a joint action; and such suit shall be commenced in the county where the drawer or drawers reside, if living in the State; and if the drawer or drawers be dead, or reside out of the State, the suit shall be brought in the county where the first indorser resides.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature