Supreme Court of Arkansas

Writ of Error to Pulaski Circuit Court

January Term 1848

                            William H. Bizzell                               
                           The Bank of the State                             
An endorsement without delivery does not divest the legal interest of the    
holder of a bill; both are unnecessary.                                      
Where endorsements are in blank, the holder may make himself the immediate   
endorsee of any one of them, or he may derive his title through all in       
                   Writ of Error to Pulaski Circuit Court.                   
The facts are stated by the court.                                           
           Ringo & Trapnell, for the Plaintiff (William H. Bizzell).         
                                Lincon, contra.                              
J. Oldham. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the Bank against      
(William H.) Bizzell, in the Pulaski Circuit Court, upon a bill of exchange  
for eleven hundred dollars, drawn by Seldon Tryon, in favor of Ezra Crowell  
upon, and accepted by (William H.) Bizzell, on the 15th December, 1840, and  
payable three months after date, at the Union Bank of Louisiana, in New      
Orleans. The declaration avers that (Ezra) Crowell endorsed the bill to      
Alvin McDonald, who then endorsed the same to the plaintiff (William H.      
Bizzell). The defendant pleaded non assumpsit. Upon the trial the plaintiff  
(William H. Bizzell) introduced, and offered in evidence, a bill of          
exchange, similar to that described in the declaration, with the additional  
endorsement of "J.H. Crease, Cash." The defendant objected to the bill being 
read in evidence, which being overruled by the court, he excepted, and       
judgement having been rendered for the plaintiff (William H. Bizzell) the    
defendant has prosecuted his writ of error to this court. If (J.H.) Crease   
was the cashier of the Bank, his endorsement did not divest her legal        
interest in the bill of exchange unless the endorsement was consummated by   
delivery to the endorsee. If he (J.H. Crease) were not the cashier of the    
Bank, but the person or agent from whom she received the bill, the           
endorsement did not consitute a variance between the bill offered in         
evidence, and that described in the declaration. Where all the endorsements  
are in blank, the holder may make himself, at his pleasure, the immediate    
endorsee of any one of them, or he my derive his title through them all in   
succession. Judgement affirmed.                                              
Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of  
Arkansas, Volume VIII, January Term 1848. Little Rock: Woodruff Printing     
Company. Reprint 1888.                                                       
David Kelley 1997