. See 1 Dane, Abridgment
420 (1823): “The amount recovered on a protested bill.
... This sum in Massachusetts [before the 1819 Act, note 10
below] was principal, interest, ten per cent, damages, and costs on foreign bills
generally, and interest and costs on inland bills, and this rule extends to bills
drawn in one State on merchants and others in another State.” The split of authority
was finally resolved by Buckner v. Finley, 27 U.S.
(2 Peters) 586 (1829), holding an interstate bill “foreign” for purposes of a statute
limiting federal circuit court jurisdiction of choses in action to foreign bills.
See also 3 Kent, Commentaries
63 note (N.Y., 1828). Massachusetts soon followed Buckner.
Phoenix Bank v. Hussey, 12 Pick.
) 483 (1832) (Interstate bill is “foreign” and drawers could not be charged without
a protest). The rule was expressly adopted in the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law.
NIL, §129; Mass. G.L.
(Ter. edn., 1932), c. 107, §152. See William E. Britton, Handbook of the Law of Bills and Notes
583–585 (St. Paul, 2d edn., 1961).