This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
The joint promisees must all, if living, join in the action.1
10 Curry v. Kansas & Colorado Pacific Ry. Co., 58 Kan. 6, 48 Pac. 579.
1 Keightley v. Watson, 3 Exch. 716; Slingnby's Case, Coke, Part V, 18b; Bradburne v. Botfield, 14 M. & W. 559; Starret v. Gault, 165 Ill. 99, 46 N. E. 220; Eveleth v. Sawyer, 96 Me. 227, 52 Atl. 639; Capen v. Barrows, 67 Mass. (1 Gray) 376.
2 Watson v. Evans, 1 Hurlst. &, C. 662; Westgate v. Healy, 4 R. I. 523.
3Musselman v. Oakes, 19 111. 81, 68 Am. Dec. 583.
4Voria v. Schoonover, 91 Kan. 530, 50 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1097, 138 Pac. 607.
5 Voris v. Schoonover, 91 Kan. 530, 50 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1097, 138 Pac. 607.
See to the same effect, Union Bank v. Spies, 151 Ia. 178, 130 N. W. 928.
6 Page v. Ford, 65 Or. 450, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 247, 131 Pac. 1013.
7 Lyon v. Ballentine, 63 Mich. 97, 6 Am. St. Rep. 284, 29 N. W. 837.
1 Alabama. Painter v. Munn, 117 Ala. 322, 67 Am. St. Rep. 170, 23 So. 83.
Arkansas. Livingston v. Pugsley, 124 Ark. 432, 187 S. W. 925 (obiter).
Florida. Chamberlain v. Lesley, 39 Fla. 452, 22 So. 736.
District of Columbia. Magruder v. Belt, 7 D. C. App. 303.
Illinois. Archer v. Bogue, 4 111. 526.
Kentucky. Quisenberry v. Artis, 62 Ky. (1 Duv.) 30.
Maine. Holyoke v. Loud, 69 Me. 59.
Massachusetts. Hewes v. Bayley, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) 96.
Missouri. Slaughter v. Davenport, 151 Mo. 20, 51 S. W. 471.
They can not sue separately.2 Even the name of a joint promisee who does not, in fact, wish to sue must be included3 if he is indemnified against liability for costs. Some statutes now provide for including an unwilling joint promisee among the defendants, stating the reason therefor.4 Under the doctrine that the action must be in the name of the real party in interest, some exceptions to the rule that joint promisees must join are recognized at modern law. A bond given in accordance with statute to obtain an attachment, though joint in form, may be sued upon by such of the obligees as are injured by the issuance of such attachment.5 However, an opposite view has been taken of an injunction bond, where all the obligees have been required to join, even if one only is injured.6
 
Continue to: