BOMLEY vers Frazier endorsor of bill of exchange may be charge without first  resort to the drawer case upon a foreign bill of exchange by the endorsee  against the endorsor and on general demurrer it be object that they have not  show a demand upon the drawer strange report er p in who default only it be  that the endorsor warrant and because this be a point unsettle and on which  there be contradictory opinion in salk and the court take time to consider of  it and on the second argument they deliver their opinion that the declaration  be well enough the design of the law of merchant in distinguish these from all  other contract by make they assignable be for the convenience of commerce that  they may pass from hand to hand in the way of trade in the same manner as if  they be specie now to require a demand upon the drawer will be lie such a clog  upon these strange bill as will deter every body from take they the drawer  life abroad perhaps in the Indies where the endorsee have no correspondent to  who he can send the bill for a demand or if he can yet the delay will be so  great that no body will meddle with they suppose it be the case of several  endorsement must the last endorsee travel round the world before he can fix  his action upon the man from who he receive the bill in common experience  every body know that the more endorsement a bill have the great credit it hear  whereas if those demand be all necessary to be make it must natural diminish  the value by how much the more difficult it render the call in the money and  as to the notion that have prevail that the endorsor warrant only in default  of the drawer there be no colour for it for every endorsor be in nature of a  new drawer and at nisi prius the endorsee be never put to prove the hand of  the first drawer where the action be against a endorsor the require a protest  for nonacceptance be not because a protest amount to demand for it be no more  than a give notice to the drawer to get his effect out of the hand of the  drawee who by the other draw be suppose to have sufficient wherewith to  satisfy the bill upon the whole we be of opinion that in the case of a foreign  bill of exchange a demand upon the drawer be not necessary to make a charge  upon the endorsor but the endorsee have his liberty to resort to either for  the money in Laurence v Jacob post and lake v hay atk the same point be lie  down general and no distinction take between foreign and inland bill and in  heylin v Adamson burr d ace in the case of a inland bill consequent the  plaintiff must have judgement