In case of joint promisees, it would be conceivable not simply to require their joinder in the action, but also to require their joinder in the seizure of any property of the defendant taken in satisfaction of the claim; or in the receipt of any performance from the promisor given without litigation. But though each joint promisee is not regarded as individually entitled to the full performance of the promise in the same way that a joint promisor is subjected to entire liability for it, a somewhat, similar effect is produced by implying an agency on the part of each joint promisee to receive or collect performance on behalf of all those entitled to it.8
5Tasker v. Shepherd, 6 H. ft N. 575; Cowasjee Nanabhoy v. Lallbhoy Vullnbhoy, L. R, 3 Ind. App. 200; Brace v. Calder,  2 Q. B. 253; Hoey d. McEwan, 5 Sees. Cas. 3d ed. Ser. 814; Griggs v. Swift, 82 Ga. 392, 9 8. E. 1062, 5 L. R. A. 405, 14 Am. St. Rep. 176; Greenburg v. Early, 30 Abb. (N. C.) 300, 303. But see Phillips v. Alhambra Palace Co.,  1 K. B. 59; Hughes v. Gross, 166 Mass. 61,
43 N. E. 1031, 32 L. R. A. 620, 55 Am. St. Rep. 375; Nickerson v. Russell, 172 Man. 584, 53 N. E. 141; Fereira v. Sayies, 5 W. ft S. 210.
6 See infra, Sec. 1941.
7Baboock v. Farwell, 245 111. 14, 44, 91 N. E. 683, 137 Am. St. Rap. 284.
8Osborn v. Martha's Vineyard R. Co., 140 Mass. 549, 5 N. E. 486. See also Wallace v. Kelsall, 7 M. & W. 264; Husband v. Davis, 10 C. B. 645.
The law of joint rights and duties is of considerable antiquity. It was derived from the law of joint tenancy in real property; the courts endeavoring to apply to joint covenants the principles which were early established in regard to joint estates. How far early doctrines have gradually developed into different modern rules will appear in the discussion of the separate features of joint rights and duties.