Case Name: R. S. Bowles v. Wright, Davenport & Co.
Court: High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1857-10
Citations: 34 Miss. 409
Docket Number: 
Parties: R. S. Bowles v. Wright, Davenport & Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 409–410

Head Matter:
R. S. Bowles v. Wright, Davenport & Co.
High court : practice : objections not made in court below will not be noticed. — It will be too late to object for tbe first time in this court, that the legal title to a bill of exchange sued on is not in the plaintiff, because his name appears to be indorsed on it: if the objection had been made on the trial, the plaintiff could have met it by striking out the indorsement.
In error from the Circuit Court of Yallabusha county. Hon. W. L. Harris, judge.
The defendants in error sued Bowles in the court below upon a bill of exchange drawn by Bowles on McRae, Coffman & Co., and accepted by them, and protested for non-payment. The bill was payable to the order of the drawer, and indorsed by him in blank. It was also indorsed by the plaintiffs. Several exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court during the trial, but no objection was raised as to the title of the plaintiffs to the bill. The jury having found a verdict for the plaintiffs, the defendant moved for a new trial, which being overruled, he took a bill of exceptions, and sued out this writ of error.
J, Z. George, for plaintiff in error.
W. M. Pstelle, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Fisher, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action in the Circuit Court of Yallabusha county, founded upon a bill of exchange, drawn by the defendant below, payable to himself, and by him indorsed in blank.
It is now said, for the first time, that the names of the plaintiffs appearing as indorsers on the bill, it must be presumed that the legal title is in the person claiming through their indorsement. If this objection had been made on the trial below, the plaintiffs having control of the bill, also had control of the indorsement, and could have stricken it out. Being an objection which they could have instantly met, it ought not here to be countenanced.
No other error being assigned, the judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.