Parties are not said to be joint in law, merely because they are connected together in some obligation or some interest

Roll. Abr. 31, pl. 9. Assumpsit. The several cattle of the two plaintiffs having been distrained, defendant, in consideration of £10 paid to him by the plaintiffs, promised to procure the cattle to be redelivered to them. Held, on motion in arrest of judgment, that the joint action was good. Rolle, C. J., said: " The consideration given is entire, and cannot be divided, and there is no inconvenience in joining the action in this case; but if one had brought the action alone, it might have been questionable." Jerman, J., dissented, and thought several promises should be intended.

American Cases. - Smith v. Tallcott, 21 Wend. 202. In an agreement under seal for the sale of lands, husband, wife, and trustee of the wife, were parties of the first part. The trustee did not execute the deed, - though by an indorsement on the back (under seal) he bound himself to do what should be necessary on his part to carry the contract into effect. Held, that an action against the parties of the second part was properly brought in the joint names of husband, wife, and trustee. - Pearson v. Parker, 3 N. H. 366. Plaintiffs, being sureties for defendant, discharged the debt, in part, with money raised upon the joint note of the plaintiffs, and in part with their joint note given directly for the residue. Held, that their action against the principal debtor was well brought jointly.- Wright v. Post, 3 Conn. 142. Twenty persons, desirous to support a public right of fishery, entered into an agreement to defend such right through a trial at law, each promising to pay his proportion of the expense to such of them as should be sued for occupying the fishery. Three of them were sued jointly, and, alter an unsuccessful defence, each paid from his private funds one-third part of the execution. Held, that these three could maintain a joint action against a fourth, to recover his twentieth part of the expense incurred; the joint liability of the plaintiffs, coupled with defendant's promise, and not the payment of the money, being the cause of action - Haughton v. Bayley, 9 Ired. L. 337. The two plaintiffs, each out of his own stock, delivered goods to defendant, to be peddled, and took a bond, payable to themselves jointly, for the faithful accounting therefor. Held, that they could maintain a joint action upon the bond, notwithstanding their several interests. See also Doe d. Campbell v. Hamilton, 13 Q. B. 977; Beer v. Beer, 9 E. L. & E. 468; Maguay v. Edwards, 20 id. 264; Arden v. Tucker, 4 B. & Ad. 815; Powis v. Smith, 5 B. & Ald. 850; Wallace v. McLaren, 1 Man. & R. 516; Townsend v. Neale, 2 Camp. 190; Osborne v. Harper, 5 East, 225; Midgley v. Lovelace, Carth. 289; Yate v. Roules, 1 Bulst. 25; Clement v. Henley, 2 Roll. Abr. 22 (F), pl. 2, Parker v. Gregg, 3 Foster (N. H.), 416; Saunders v. Johnson, Skin. 401; Duma-noise v. Townsend, 80 Mich. 302.