Wakefield v. Brown, 9 Q. B. 209. Covenant. Bingley, being owner of a term of sixty-one years, granted an annuity to Samuel W, and for securing payment, assigned the term (wanting one day) to Robert W. By indenture, reciting these facts, Robert W., at the request of Samuel W. and of Bingley, demised, and Bingley demised and confirmed the premises to Sophia B., at a rent payable to Samnel W., while the premises remained subject to the annuity, and afterwards to Bingley. Sophia B. covenanted to and with Samuel W. and Robert W., and their respective executors, etc, and also with and to Bingley, his executors, etc, to pay the rent, while the premises were subject to the annuity, to Robert [sic] W., and afterwards to Bingley, and also to make certain repairs. The action was upon the covenant to repair. Held, on demurrer, that Samuel W. being dead, Robert W. and Bingley could sue jointly,

- Rose v. Poulton, 2 B. and Ad. 822. Covenant. Demurrer. The covenant declared upon was, in terms, with the plaintiffs and G., jointly and severally. G. was also one of the covenantors, but was dead at the time of the bringing of the action. The court held, that whether or not one of the covenantees could, if he had chosen, have sued separately, the action, as brought, was well maintainable.

- Pease v. Hirst, 10 B. & C. 122. A, wishing to obtain credit with his bankers, in 1817, prevailed upon three persons to join him in a promissory note, whereby they jointly and severally promised to pay the bankers or order £.300. Upon two of the partners retiring from the banking-house, a balance was struck between the old and new firm, and the promissory note was delivered to the new firm, but not indorsed to them. Held, that the action was well brought in the name of the surviving members of the old firm. - Kitchin v. Buckley, T. Raym. 80; 1 Lev. 109; s. c. 1 Sid. 157; nom. Kitchin v. Compton. Covenant for repairs against lessee for years. One Randall demised the tenement to the defendant, and afterwards granted a moiety of the reversion to Kitchin, and afterwards the other moiety to Knight. Kitchin and Knight brought this action jointly. After verdict for the plaintiffs, it was moved in arrest of judgment, that the plaintiffs, being tenants in common, ought not to join. But the court held that the action was properly brought, and said: "This is a personal action merely, in which tenants in common may join." - VAUX v. Draper, Styles, 156, 203; 1