Judgment in an action against A will not bar subsequent action for the same cause against B if there is no joint relation between them;90 and as joint and several obligations involve separate obligations on the part of each obligor, a judgment in favor of or against one, is no bar to an action against another.91

Chamberlain, 160 Ind. 114, 117, 66 N. E. 448; Bonnon v. Urton, 3 Greene (Iowa), 228; Chicago & Atchison Bridge Co. v. Fowler, 55 Kans. 17, 39 Pac. 727; Waits v. McClure, 10 Bush, 763; McGreary v. Chandler, 58 Me. 537; Sittig v. Birkestaek, 38 Md. 168; Townsend v. Wheetland, 186 Mass. 343; Dillenbeck v. Simons, 105 Mich. 373, 63 N. W. 438; McKnight v. Lo-wits, 196 Mich. 368, 163 N. W. 94; Posch v. Lion Bonding & Surety Co., 137 Minn. 169, 163 N. W. 131; Lewis v. State, 65 Miss. 468, 4 So. 429; Duig-nan v. Montana Club, 16 Mont. 189, 40 Pac. 294; Bower v. Cassels, 59 Neb. 620, 81 N. W. 622; Deegsn v. Deegan, 22 Nev. 185, 37 Pac. 360, 58 Am. St. Rep. 742; Gove v. Lawrence, 24 N. H. 128; Gray v. Sharp, 62 N. J. L. 102, 40 Atl. 771; Robertson v. Smith, 18 Johns. 459, 9 Am. Dec. 227; Johnson v. Gooch, 114 N. C. 62, 19 S. E. 62; McArthur v. Ladd, 5 Oh. 514; Collins v. Smith, 78 Pa. 423; Cone v. Cone, 61 S. C. 512, 39 S. E. 748; Carr v. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.), 190 S. W. 254; Hardy v. Cheney, 42 Vt. 417; Wilson v. McCormick, 86 Va. 995, 11 S. E. 976; Dickenson v. Spokane, 26 Wash. 292, 66 Pac. 381; Radant v. Werheim Co., 106 Wis. 600, 82 N. W. 562. But the objection when apparent from the complaint was held ground of demurrer in Hevia v. Whee-lock, 155 N. Y. App. Div. 387, 140 N. Y. S. 351; Third Nat. Bank v. Graham, 174 N. Y. App. D. 503, 161 N. Y. S. 159.

89 1 Chitty, Pleading (13th Am. from 7th Eng. ed.), 44; Fairchild v. Llewellyn Realty Co., 82 N. J. L. 423,82 Atl. 924. Cf. the following section ad fin.

90 Isaacs v. Salbstein, [1916] 2 K. B. 139.

91 Broome v. Wooton, Yelv. 67, s. c. sub nom. Brown v. Wootton, Cro. Jac. 73; Whiteacres V. Hamkison, Cro. Chas. 75; Higgen's Case, 6 Coke, 44, b; Walters v. Smith, 2 B. & Ad. 889, 892; Lechmere v. Fletcher, 1 Cr. & M. 623; Sessions v. Johnson, 96 U. S. 347, 348, 24 L. Ed. 596; United States v, Ames, 99 U. S. 35, 25 L. Ed. 295; Morgan v, Chester, 4 Conn. 387, 389; Stingley v. Kirkpatrick, 8 Blackf. 188; Simonds v. Center, 6 Mass. 18. See also Young v. Brown, 10 Iowa, 537; Van-uxen v. Burr, 151 Mass. 386, 24 N. E. 773; Townsend v. Riddle, 2 N. H. 448, 450; Schleainger v. Perper, 70 N. Y. Misc. 250, 126 N. Y. S. 731; Noble v. Beeman-Spaulding-Woodward Co., 65 Or. 93, 131 Pac. 1006, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 162. As the liability of joint

Indeed the plaintiff may simultaneously bring separate actions against each of the obligors; 92 but not a joint action against any number less than all.93 Where, however, local practice allows the action to be discontinued against certain defendants and maintained as to Another, all but one defendant may be dropped from the action, as stated in the next section. So that if an action is brought against two or more as joint and several debtors judgment may be given against one alone who is severally liable.94