Keightley v. Watson, 3 Exch. 716. [For an abstract of this case see note (j) supra.] - Jones v. Robinson, 1 Exch. 454. The declaration stated that the plaintiff and A B carried on business in copartnership; and in consideration that they would sell defendant their business, and become trustees for him in respect of all debts, etc, due to plaintiff and A B in respect thereof, defendant promised plaintiff to pay him all the money he had advanced in respect of the copartnership, and for which it was accountable to plaintiff, and also promised plaintiff and A B that he would discharge all the debts due from the plaintiff and A B as such copartners, and all liabilities to which they are subject. The declaration then averred that plaintiff and A B did sell the business to defendant and became trustees for him in respect of all debts, etc, due to plaintiff and A B in respect thereof, and that, at the time of the promise, plaintiff had advanced a certain sum, for the non-payment of which the action was brought. On motion in arrest of judgment, the defendant contended that the consideration moved from the plaintiff and A B jointly, and therefore (as the consideration is the essential part of a contract, without which the promise is nothing), A B should have been joined as co-plaintiff; but the court held that the separate interest of the plaintiff in the partnership fund was the consideration upon which the promise sued upon in this case was founded; and, therefore, the rule for which the defendant contended did not apply. - Palmer v. Sparshott, 4 Man. & G. 137. By an agreement, not under seal, between defendant of the one part, and plaintiff and F. of the other part - reciting that plaintiff and F. had assigned certain property to defendant for £150 apiece, and that it had been agreed that defendant should retain £50 out of each £150 - the defendant, in consideration of the two several sums of £50 and £50 so retained, agreed with plaintiff and F., their executors, etc, to indemnify plaintiff and F., and each of them, their heirs, executors, etc., and their, and each and every of their, estates and effects, from the costs of a certain action. Held, that plaintiff might maintain assumpsit upon this agreement without joining F. - Poole v. Hill, 6 M. & W. 835. Covenant. By articles of agreement, reciting that the defendant had contracted with J., as the agent of the plaintiff and the other owners of the property, for the purchase of the lands therein mentioned, the defendant covenanted with the plaintiff, and the several other parties beneficially interested, to perform such contract by paying the purchase-money on a certain day, etc. Held, that this covenant was several, and that the plaintiff might sue alone for the non-payment of his share of the purchase-money, without joining the other parties beneficially interested. - Place v. Delegal, 4 Bing. N. C. 426. Assumpsit. One Evans, as attorney for plaintiff's, executors of Miers, having sold an estate, to a share of the proceeds of which W. was entitled as legatee, and defendant claiming W.'s share of such proceeds, under an agreement with W. plaintiffs paid the amount to defendant, on receiving from him a guaranty in these terms: " Mr. John Evans, and also Messrs. Place & Meabry [the plaintiffs], as the executors of the will of the late Mr. John Miers: In consideration of your having paid, etc, I hereby undertake to indemnify and save you and each of you harmless, etc. C. Delegal." Held, that plaintiffs might sue on this guaranty without joining Evans. -Thacker v. Shepherd, 2 Chitt. 652. The plaintiff and one R., being insurance brokers and partners, effected a policy of insurance on the defendant's ship. The premium was not paid to the underwriter till after R. had become bankrupt, when it was paid by the plaintiff alone out of his private property. The plainwhich, whether it be an interest * or an obligation, belongs to all. Hence arises an implied authority to act for each tiff brought this action alone to recover the amount of the premium thus paid. Held, that the action was well brought.

- Glossop v. Colman, 1 Stark. 25. Assumpsit. Plaintiff had held out his son as his partner, and had made out bills and signed receipts in their joint names; but held by the court of K. B. that he was not precluded from maintaining his action by showing that his son was not in fact his partner. - Davenport v. Rack-Strow, 1 C. & P. 89. Hullock, B., s. p.

- Kell v. Nainby, 10 B. & C. 20 s. p. " A party with whom the contract is actually made may sue without joining others with whom it is apparently made." Parke, J. - Garret v. Taylor, 1 Esp. Nisi Prius, 117. "Three persons had employed the defendant to sell some timber for them, in which they were jointly concerned. Two of them he had paid their exact proportion, and they had given him a receipt in full of all demands. The third now brought his action for the remainder, being his share; and it was objected, that as this was a joint employment by three, one alone could not bring his action. But it was ruled by Lord Mansfield, that where there had been a severance as above stated, that one alone might sue. 4 G. 3 MS." - Kirk-man v. Newstead, 1 Esp. Nisi Prius, 117. "Action for the use and occupation of a house. It appeared that the house was the property of six tenants in common, to all of whom, except the plaintiff, the defendant had paid his rent; and this action was for his share of the rent. It was objected that one tenant in common alone could not bring this action, but that all ought to join; but Lord Mansfield overruled the objection, and the plaintiff recovered. Sitt. Westm. M. 177G, MS." [The above two cases from Espinasse's Nisi Prius are of doubtful authority. See note to Hatsall v. Griffith, 4 Tyr. 488, and Walford on Parties, 466.] - Wotton v. Cooke, Dyer, 337 b.

Covenant. Three purchased lands jointly in fee and covenanted each with the others and their heirs, et eorum utrique, to convey to the heirs of those who happened to die first, their respective third parts. Two of the three having died, the heir of one of them brought this action against the survivor, alleging that he had not conveyed to him according to his covenant. It was moved, in arrest of judgment, that the covenant was joint, and not several, for the word "utrique" in Latin is conjunctim, and not separatim; sed nun allocatur, and judgment was given for the plaintiff. American Cases. - Ball v. Leigh, 8

Cranch, 50. Plaintiff and P. consigned to defendant a quantity of cotton, of which they were joint owners. They gave defendant separate and different instructions for the disposition of their respective moieties, each distinctly confining his instructions to his own moiety, Held, reversing judgment of circuit court, that plaintiff could maintain an action for the violation of his instructions, without joining P. - Swett v. PATRICK, 2 Fairf. 179. Defendant conveyed land with warranty to A, B, and C. Held, on demurrer, that a several action on the warranty was well brought by A. - Sharp v. Conkling, 16 Vt. 354. Covenant. By indenture between the plaintiff and others, of the first part, and the defendant of the other part, the defendant covenanted with the parties of the first part that he would turn from its natural channel a certain stream of water which flowed over the land of the covenantees; and whereas, the water, when diverted, would pass over the land of the plaintiff, that he would so convoy it as not to injure said land. The plaintiff brought the action without joining the other covenantees, and alleged breaches of both covenants. Held, that he might recover on the second covenant, but not on the first. Redfield, J., said the court were willing to abide by the rule that, where the interest in the subject-matter secured by the covenant is several, although the terms of the covenant will more naturally bear a joint interpretation, yet, if they do not exclude the inference of being intended to be several, they shall have a several construction put upon them. See also Catlin v. Barnard, 1 Aik. 9; Harrold v. Whitaker, 10 Jur. loo4; Mills v. Ladbrooke, 7 Man. & G. 218; Simpson v. Clayton, 4 Bing. N. C. 758; Withers v. Bircham, 3 B. & C. 254; Johnson v. Wilson, Willes, 248; Lloyd v. Anhbowle, 2 Taunt. 324; Story v. Richardson, 6 Bing. N. C. 123; Owston v. Ogle, 13 East, 538; Lahy v. Holland, 8 Gill, 445; Payne v. Jelleff, 67 Wis. 246.