If several persons make a joint promise, each is liable to the promisee for the whole debt or liability, notwithstanding the fact that they are both liable.13 Neither is bound by himself, but each is bound to the full extent of the promise. If both are living and within the jurisdiction of the court, they should all be joined as defendants in an action on the contract.19 If one of them is sued alone, he is not bound to answer to the merits of the action without the others being sued with him. Re may demur if the defect appears on the face of the pleading, or plead in abatement if it does not so appear.20 If the defect so appears, it is fatal, not only on demurrer, but on motion in arrest of judgment.21 If it does not so appear, the objection must be taken
Hanley, 153 Mo. App. 169, 132 S. W. 747. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 182-184,; Cent. Dig. §§ 780-189.
18 Baum v. McAfee (Tex. Civ. App.) 125 S. W. 984. An agreement between two joint obligors that they shall each be severally liable for one-half the obligation is not binding upon the obligee. Knowlton v. Parsons, 198 Mass. 439, 84 N. E. 798. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 182; Cent. Dig. §§ 780-
19 Smith v. Miller, 49 N. J. Law, 521, 13 Atl. 39; Eller v. Lacy, 137 Ind. 436, 36 N. E. 1088; Van Leyen v. Wreford, 81 Mich. 606, 45 N. W. 1116; Ripley v. Crooker, 47 Me. 370, 74 Am. Dec. 491; Walker v. Bank, 5 C. C. A. 421, 56 Fed. 76; Allin v. Shadburne's Ex'r, 1 Dana (Ky.) 68, 25 Am. Dec. 121; O'Brien v. Bound, 2 Speer (S. C.) 495, 42 Am. Dec. 384; McCall v. Price, 1 McCord (S. C.) 82; Meyer v. Estes, 164 Mass. 457, 41 N. E. 683, 32 L. R. A. 283. An understanding between the promisors themselves that one of them shall pay or perform the whole debt or promise does not affect the rule. Lodge v. Dicas, 3 Barn. & Ald. 611. A familiar illustration of joint promises is in the case of partnership debts. All the partners must be sued. In some states it is provided by statute that all contracts which by common law are joint only shall be construed to be joint and several. Belleville Sav. Bank v. Winslow (C. C.) 30 Fed. 488; Wibaux v. Live Stock Co., 9 Mont. 154. 22 Pac. 492. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 182; Cent. Dig. §§ 780-787.
20 Rice v. Shute, 5 Burrows, 2611; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA v. REEVES & CABOT, 48 Pa. 472, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 333; State v. Chandler, 79 Me. 172, 8 Atl. 553; Nash v. Skinner, 12 Vt. 219, 36 Am. Dec. 338; Smith v. Miller, 49 N. J.' Law, 521, 13 Atl. 39; Seymour v. Minturn, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 169, 8 Am. Dec. 380; Bledsoe v. Irvin, 35 Ind. 293; Henderson v. Hammond, 19 Ala. 340; Potter v. McCoy, 26 Pa. 458. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 187; Cent. Dig. §§ 780-787.
21 Oilman v. Rives, 10 Pet. 298, 9 L. Ed. 432; Bragg T. Wetzel, 5 Blackl by plea in abatement; and, if the defendant pleads to the merits, he cannot object that others were jointly liable with him;22 for, when two are jointly bound in one bond or on one promise, though neither of them is bound by himself, yet neither of them can say that it is not his deed or promise.23