The adjective law is so closely connected with the substantive law that a statement of the effect of these different types of contract is in outward form almost exclusively a matter of procedure, though it affects the substantive rights of the parties. All the joint promisors are liable upon the joint contract,1 so that a promise to release one on his paying his proportionate share of the debt is without consideration.2 All the promisors upon a joint contract should be made defendants.3 Such defect in parties is waived if it is not taken advantage of properly by the defendants who are made parties to such action.4 If the declaration or petition does not show on its face that the promise is a joint promise and that the other promisor is alive, advantage of such defect must be taken by a plea in abatement.5 Under the Code of Civil Procedure such objection must be made by demurrer or by answer.6 If one of the defendants was dead, it was not necessary to allege such fact in the declaration as a reason for omitting him.7 In Louisiana the plaintiff may sue one party who is liable in solido without making the other obligor a party.8 In an action against joint promisors, a joint judgment should be rendered against all,9 except such as can not be served with process,10 and after such judgment has been obtained the plaintiff may issue execution against any of the defendants he chooses. The fact that one of the defendants who are joint promisors, is an infant, and that he can interpose the defense of infancy successfully, does not prevent judgment from being rendered against the remaining joint promisors.11 If some of the joint obligors are insolvent the payee can enforce payment of the entire debt against those who are solvent.12 Secret arrangements made between the joint contractors can not affect their liability to the promisee. Thus A, B and C signed a note and mortgage, joint in form, with the understanding that A should take and pay for two-thirds of the property and B and C together the remaining one-third. B and C were liable to the promisee for the entire debt.13 A statute which provides that the plaintiff may, if he wishes, join some of the parties who are severally liable upon the same instrument, does not apply to parties who are jointly liable.14

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

Minnesota. Walford v. Bowen, 57 Minn. 267, 59 N. W. 195.

New Hampshire. Ladd v. Baker, 26 N. H. 76, 57 Am. Dec. 355.

Ohio. Wallace v. Jewell, 21 O. S. 163, 8 Am. Rep. 48.

Vermont. Arbuckle v. Ternpleton, 65 Vt. 205, 25 Atl. 1095.

West Virginia. Keller v. McHuff-man, 15 W. Va. 64.

Wisconsin. Dart v. Sherwood, 7 Wis. 523, 76 Am. Dec. 228; Dill v. White, 52 Wis. 456, 9 N. W. 404.

So by statute, Miller v. Lewiston National Bank, 18 Ida. 124, 108 Pac. 901; Dill v. White, 52 Wis. 456.

5 Booth v. Huff, 116 Ga. 8, 94 Am. St. Rep. 98, 42 S. E. 381; Dow Law Bank v. Godfrey, 126 Mich. 521, 86 Am. St. Rep. 559, 85 N. W. 1075.

6 Brownell v. Winnie, 29 N. Y. 400, 86 Am. Dec. 314.

7 Wood v. Carter, 67 Neb. 133, 93 N. W. 158.

8 Bell v. Adams, 150 Cal. 772, 90 Pac. 118. See Sec. 2068.

9 Bell v. Adams, 150 Cal. 772, 90 Pac. 118.

1 Holmes v. Sinclair, 19 111. 71; Whitmore v. Nickerson, 125 Mass. 496, 28 Am. Rep. 257.

1 Allin v. Shadburne, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 68, 25 Am. Dec. 121; Green v. Rick, 121 Pa. St. 130, 6 Am. St. Rep. 670, 2 L. R. A. 48, 15 Atl. 497; Sully v. Campbell, 99 Tenn. 434, 43 L. R. A. 161, 42 S. W. 15; Camp v. Simon, 23 Utah 56, 63 Pac. 332.

2 Davidson v. Burke, 143 111. 139, 36 Am. St. Rep. 367, 32 N. E. 514. See Sec. 609.

3 Clements v. Miller, 13 N. D. 176, 100 N. W. 239; McArthur v. Ladd, 5 Ohio 514; Kamm v. Harker, 3 Or. 208.

4 McArthur v. Ladd, 5 Ohio 514.

5 Posch v. Lion Bonding &, Surety Co., 137 Minn. 169, 163 N. W. 131; McArthur v. Ladd, 5 Ohio 514.

6 Posch v. Lion Bonding & Surety Co., 137 Minn. 169, 163 N. W. 131.

7 Richards v. Heather, 1 Barn. & Aid. 29.

9 Shreveport v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 131 La. 933, 60 So. 621.

10 United States. Gilman v. Rives, 35 U. S. (10 Pet.) 298, 9 L. ed. 432.

Indiana. Bragg v. Wetzel, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 95, 18 Am. Dec. 131.

Massachusetts. Meyer v. Estes, 164 Mass. 457, 32 L. R. A. 283, 41 N. E. 683.

Michigan. Dumanoise v. Townsend, 80 Mich. 302, 45 N. W. 179.

Missouri. Lemon v. Wheeler. 96 Mo. App. 651, 70 S. W. 924.

Ohio. Pollard v. Collier, 8 Ohio 43.

South Carolina. Lucas v. Sanders, 1 McMul. (S. Car.) 311.

10 Perkins County v. Miller, 55 Neb. 141, 75 N. W. 577.

11 Cole v. Manners, 76 Neb. 454, 107 N. W. 777.

12 Camp v. Simon, 23 Utah 56, 63 Pac. 332.