Case ID: mo_1/html/0510-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wash, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bailey v. Thornhill.
    Where A. makes a bond in which he promises to pay C. or B. a sum of money — held, that C. cannot maintain an action alone.
    ON ERROR from St. Charles Circuit Courts
   Wash, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action of debt, brought by Bailey against Thornhill, in the Circuit Court, on a writing obligatory, in the words and figures following : On or against the 25th of December next, I promise ,to pay James B. Bailey or John Logan one hundred and seventy dollars, for value received of him this 24th day of March, one • thousand eight hundred and seventeen. (Signed,)

Attest: Jonathan Gordon. 'REUBEN THORNHILL, [seal.]”

The defendant craved oyer of the obligation, and demurred; on which the Circuit Court gave judgment in his favor; to reverse which this writ of error is prosecuted. The only question for the determination of this Court is, whether .a several action may be maintained by Baily upon this obligation ? And we are clearly of opinion that it cannot be. A man cannot be bound to several persons severally: 5 Bac. p. 163. And on an obligation to two or more, to pay money to one of them, 'all must join in the suit, &c. This, at best, is such a case.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is, therefore, affirmed with, costs.