1. Plaintiffs.

Sec 814

Where a contract is made for the benefit of two or more joint promisees, all must join in the suit;1 nor will a disclaimer even by deed by one of such joint promisees of all interest in the debt discharge it from his control so as to enable his joint promisees to sue without hirn.2 - As will be hereafter seen, death severs a joint contract so that the survivor can sue; and a severance, also, is worked by one of the joint creditors settling with the debtor for his claim in such a way as not to work a release.3 It has been also held that a severance may be worked by the acceptance by each of the joint promisees of special independent promises from the debtor.4

Sec 815

When, however, the promisees are not joint, but several - i. e., when on the face of the obligation each has a distinct interest - any one of them may sue.1 But the mere designating of the shares of the promisees does not produce a severance unless it should appear that it was intended that each party should separately sue for his specific claim.2 It is otherwise, however, when the interests of the promisees are practically several.3 The tests given by Mr. Dicey4 are (1) "where there is a separate consideration proceeding from different persons, there is considered to be a contract with each of them, and they, therefore, cannot join in an action for breach of contract."5 (2) "Where the consideration moves from several persons jointly, such persons, as having the joint legal interest in the contract, should be joined as plaintiffs in suing for a breach of the contract."6

All joint promisees must join.

Otherwise when creditors are several.

1 Leake, 2d ed. 140, 452: 1 Smith's L.C. 7th ed. 877; Pease V. Hirst, 10 B. & C. 122; Hopkinson V. Lee, 6 Q.

B. 964; Rose V. Poulton, 2 B. & Ad. 822; Soorsbie V. Park, 12 M. & W. 146; see Wakefield V. Brown, 9 Q. B. 209; Jordan V. Wilkins, 3 Wash. C.

C. 40; Dob V. Halsey, 16 Johns. 34; Heron V. Hoffner, 3 Rawle, 393; Wilson V. Wallace, 8 S. & R. 53; Archer V. Bogue, 3 Scam. 526; Hervey V. Mt. Pleasant, 70 Mo. 500.

2 Ibid.; Petrie V. Bury, 3 B. & C. 353; Wetherell V. Langston, 1 Ex. 634; see Dicey on Parties, Am. ed. 1879, 11, 104. And see as sustaining the text Ulmer V. Cunningham, 2 Greenl. 117; Moody V. Sewall, 14 Me. 295; Hilliker V. Loop, 5 Vt. 116; Wright V. Post, 3 Conn. 142; Halliday V. Doggett, 6 Pick. 359; Tate V. Ins. Co., 13 Grey, 79; Dob V. Halsey, 16 Johns. 34; Sweigart V. Berk, 8 S. & R. 308; Michener V. Dale, 23 Penn. St. 59; Meason V. Kaine, 67.

Penn. St. 126; Jacobs V. Davis, 34 Md. 204; Tapscott V. Williams, 10 Ohio, 442; Sims V. Tyre, 3 BreV. 249; Lucas V. McAlilly, 1 McMul. 311. That one party may use the name of another without his consent, on tendering indemnity, see Chambers V. Donaldson, 9 East, 471; Wright V. McLemore, 10 Yerg. 235.

3 Austin V. Walsh, 2 Mass. 405; Baker V. Jewell, 6 Mass. 460; Beach V. Hotchkiss, 2 Conn. 697; Ch. on Pl. 16th Am. ed. (1879) 11.

4 Ibid.; Austin V. Welsh, 2 Mass. 401; Gould V. Gould, 6 Wend. 263. That a party who is obligor in a joint claim, of which, with others, he is obligee, cannot maintain an action at law on the claim, see Bedford V. Brut-ton, 1 Bing. N. C. 399; Beecham V. Smith, E. B. & E. 442; Faulkner V. Faulkner, 73 Mo. 339; supra, sec 805. It is otherwise with joint and several obligations. Ibid.