If the language used show's an intention to assume a liability, either joint or several in its nature, at the option of the promisee, this imports a joint and several obligation.1 Thus the use of such language as "we, or either of us,"2 "we jointly and severally promise"3 or the use of the singular number, such as "I promise,"4 followed by the signature of two or more promisors, imports a joint and several liability. So a note containing the words "I promise to pay," signed at the bottom by A and on the back before delivery by B, was held to be a joint and several note.5 In New York, however, it has been held that a note in the form "I promise," is necessarily a several note only.6 The liability of partners is a joint and several liability.7 Under a statute which provides that if parties who unite in a promise receive the benefit from the consideration, their promise is presumed to be joint and several,8 a contract by which a number of mine owners employ a manager, imposes a joint and several liability upon the mine owners.9

14 Current v. Fulton, 10 Ind. App. 617, 38 N. E. 419; Gibbons v. Bente, 51 Minn. 499, 22 L. R. A. 80, 63 N. W. 756.

15 Gibbons v. Bente, 51 Minn. 499, 22 L. R. A. 80, 53 N. W. 756; and see to the same effect Current v. Fulton, 10 Ind. App. 617, 38 N. E. 419.

16 Cornish v. West, 82 Minn. 107, 52 L. R. A. 355, 84 N. W. 750.

17 Adriatic Fire Ins. Co. v. Treadwell, 108 U. 8. 361, 27 L. ed. 754; Western Wheel Scraper Co. v. Locklin, 100 Mich. 339, 58 N. W. 1117; Taylor v. Coon, 79 Wis. 76, 48 N. W. 123.

18 Rutherford v. Holbart, 42 Okla. 735, L. R. A. 1915B, 221, 142 Pac. 1099.

1 Connecticut. Salomon v. Hopkins, 61 Conn. 47, 23 Ati 716.

Indiana. Maiden v. Webster, 30 Ind. 317.

Massachusetts. Hemmenway v. Stone, 7 Mass. 58, 5 Am. Dec. 27.

Oregon. Anderson v. Stayton State Bank, 82 Or. 357, 159 Pac. 1033.

Wisconsin. Dart v. Sherwood, 7 Wis. 523 76 Am. Dec. 228: Dill v. White, 52 Wis. 456.

2Pogue v. Clark, 25 111. 333.

3Rees v. Abbott, Cowp. 832.

4 Connecticut. Monson v. Drakeley, 40 Conn. 552, 16 Am. Rep. 74; Salomon v. Hopkins, 61 Conn. 47, 23 Atl. 716.