As has been stated, the obligation of joint wrongdoers to pay damages is held in America to be joint and several; while the obligation to make restitution, upon principle at least, is several (ante, Sec. 289). May the person injured sue one of two joint wrongdoers for damages and the other for restitution ? Or is an election as to one conclusive in favor of both? The authorities are not harmonious, but the true rule is believed to be that, subject to the limitation that a judgment in favor of or against one tort-feasor may be held to bar all subsequent proceedings against the other (ante, Sec. Sec. 295, 296), the person injured is entitled to a separate election against each tort-feasor.1 It has been contended that the bringing of an action for goods sold and delivered against one joint tort-feasor is an election to treat the transaction as a sale, and that subsequently to bring suit for damages against another is inconsistent and absurd.2 But a conclusive answer to this argument is that it rests solely upon the fiction that the bringing of assumpsit turns a conversion into a sale; that this fiction is indulged for the purpose of giving a remedy and should not be employed to deny a remedy; and that there is no injustice or hardship to two joint wrongdoers in allowing a separate election of remedies against each.