Lucas v. Beale, 20 Law Jour. (N. S.) C. P. 134, 4 E. L. & E. 358. Assumpsit. The plaintiff, acting on behalf of the members of an orchestra, to which he himself belonged, signed a proposal, " on behalf of the members of the orchestra," to continue their services provided the defendant would guarantee certain salary then due to them. The defendant accepted this proposition, but failed to pay the salary due. The plaintiff alone brought an action for the whole money due to himself and the rest, and stated the contract to be with himself and the rest. The jury found that he acted on behalf of himself as well as the rest. Held, that the contract was joint, and that he could not recover. - Lockhart v. Barnard, 14 M. & W. 674. Assumpsit. A hand-bill, relating to a stolen parcel, offered a reward to "whoever should give such information as should lead to the early apprehension of the guilty parties." The information was communicated first by plaintiff to C. in conversation, afterwards to a constable by plaintiff and C.

* which is common to them both. They must be so con- nected as to be in some measure identified, They have jointly. Held, that C. ought to have joined in the action for the reward.- Hopkinson v. Lee, 6 Q. B. 964. [For an abstract of this case, and for the com-ments made upon it by the Court of Exchequer, see note (j) supra.] - Byrne v. FITZHUGH, 5 Tyr. 54; s. c. 1 C, M. & R. 613. Before Patteson, J., and Gurney, B. The agreement of defendant was that, in consideration of plaintiff and B. using their endeavors to charter ships and procure passengers on board of them, and not engaging with any other emigrant broker, they, the defendants, undertook to pay plaintiff and B. a commission of £5 per cent on the amount of the net passage-money made by the ships, one-half to be paid to plaintiff, and the other half to B.; Lane v. Drink-water, being cited, held, that plaintiff, suing without B., should be non-suited. - HATSALL v. Griffith, 4 Tyr. 487. A broker was employed to sell a ship belonging to three part-owners, two of whom communicated with him. To them he paid their shares of the proceeds of the sale; but, after admitting the third part-owner's share to be in his hands, refused to pay it to him without the consent of the other two. An action of assumpsit having been brought by the third part-owner of the share, held, that he was not entitled to recover. - Petrie v. Bury, 3 B. & C. 353. Covenant. Demurrer. The covenant declared upon was with the plaintiff and two others, for the use of a third party. The declaration averred that the two other covenantees had never sealed the deed. Held, notwithstanding, that as all might sue, all must sue, and that the declaration was bad. - SOUTHCOTE V. HOARE, 3 Taunt. 87.

Covenant upon an indenture of three parts. Held, on demurrer, that a covenant with A and 15, and with every of them, is joint, though A is party of the first part, and B party of the second part, to the deed. - Guidon v. Robson, 2 Camp. 302. Action by the drawer and payee of a bill of exchange against the acceptor. The bill sued upon was drawn payable to Guidon & Hughes, under which firm the plaintiff traded. There was no one associated with him as partner; but he had a clerk named Hughes, and Lord Ellenborough held that such clerk should have been joined. - Slingsby's Case, 5 Hep. 18 b.; s. c. 2 Leon. 160; s. c. 2 Leon. 47; s. c. Jenk. Cent. 262. R. 15. by deed covenanted with four persons and their assigus, et ad et cum quolibet eorum, that he was lawfully and solely seized of a rectory. Two of the covenantees brought covenant against R, B. and held ill, because it was a joint covenant, and the Others Ought to have joined. The court said: When it appears by the declaration that every of the covenantees bath, or is to have, a several interest or estate, there, when the cove-nant is made with the covenantees, et cum quolibet eorum, these words, cum quo eorum make the covenant several in. respect of their several interests. As if a man by indenture demises to A black acre, to B white acre, to C green acre, and covenants with them, and quo eorum, that he is lawful owner of all the said acres, etc., in that case in respect of the said several interests, by the said words et cum quolibet eorum, the covenant is made several; but if he demises to them the acres jointly, then these words, cum quolibet eorum, are void, lor a man by his covenant (unless in respect of several interests), cannot make it first joint and then make it several by the same or the like words, cum quolibet coram; for, although sundry persons may bind themselves et quemlibet eorum, and so the obligation shall be joint or several at the election of the obligee, yet a man cannot bind himself to three, and to each of them, to make it joint or several at the election of several persons for one and the same cause, for the court would be in doubt for which of them to give judgment, which the law would not suffer, as it is held in 3 H.6, 44 b." See also 15rad-burne v. Botfield, 14 M. & W. 559; Sorsbie v. Park, 12 M. & W. 146; Lane v. Drink-water, 5 Tyr. 40, 1 C., M. & R. 599; English v. Blundell, 8 C. & P. 332; Decharms v. Horwood, 10 Bing. 526; Hill v. Tucker, 1 Taunt. 7; Anderson v. Mar-tindale, 1 East, 497; Spencer v. Durant, Comb. 115; Thimblethorp v. Hardesty 7 Mod. 116; Chanter v. Leese, 4 M. & W. 295; Wetherell v. Langston, 1 Exch. 634; Foley v. Addenbrooke, 4 Q. B. 197; Teed v. Ellworthy, 14 East, 2lo; Scott v. Godwin, 1 B. & P. 67.

American "uses. - Sweigart v. Berk, 8 S. & R. 308. Seven of ten joint obligees brought an action (living the other obligees) against the obligor. Held, that it could not be maintained. Semble, an action could not have been maintained by one, although brought in respect of separate interests. - Dob v. Halsey, 16 Johns, 34. Assumpsit by 1>. & D., partners, against H. M., being shown to be a not several and * respective shares, which being united make a whole; but these together constitute one whole, member of the firm, held, that he ought to have been joined as plaintiff. - Sims v. Harris, 8 B. Mon. 55. Debt on a penal bond. The bond was executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff and several others, as joint obligees. The plaintiff brought the action alone to recover the penalty. Held, that the action was not well brought. Aliter, if the action had been covenant on the bond; for in that case, so far as each of the obligees in the bond has a separate interest in the performance of its stipulations, the cause of action is several and not joint. See Pearce v. Hitchcock, 2 Comst. 388. - Tapscott v. Williams, 10 Ohio, 442. Where lands descended to coparceners, with warranty, and they were evicted before severance, it was held that one of them could not sue alone on the warranty for his share of the damages.