The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1880-12-30
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS,
Reported for The Clarion by L. Brame. Attor
ney-at-Law, Jackson, Miss
OCTOBER TERM, 1880.
J. = HAMILTON & Co., J

is. HAMILTON & Co, J
CArcHNGs & Co.
Error to the Circuit Court of Kinds
County, Hon. ;. :. Calhoon, Judge.
Catchings {, Co. sued Hamilton & Co. be.
fore "a justice Of the peace of Kinds County
on an accepted bill of exchange, drawn by
Lehman & Hortigan, Of Vicksburg, Warren
County, and recovered judgment An APP
peal was taken. In the circuit court the de-
PENDANTS plead in abatement.
ii was admitted that they were accommo-
dati0n acceptors, and that the drawer resid-
cd in Warren County; but judgment was
entered for plaintiffs The other facts nee
essary to be understood appear in the opn-
ion Of the court, which is given in full.
CHALMERS, c. J.
Plaintiffs in error insist that inasmuch as
it was shown by their plea in abatement that
the bill sued on, was well known to de
PENDANTS in error, that suit should have
been instituted in the county of the resi-
dence of the drawer of the BILL to-wit in the
county of Warren, and that said drawer
should have been jointly sued with them.
The argument is based on the provisions of
Z 2237, Code of 1871, requiring that in suits
upon negotiable instruments the makers, ac-
ceptors, drawers and endorser5 shall be sued
in a Joint action and that such action shall
be brought in the county where the party
first liable resides. 1t is insisted that mas
much rs we had declared in MeggeH v.
Baum. 81 Miss - that the accommodation
acCeptor of bill is to be regarded between
the parties Is the surety of the drawer and
secondarily liable, the above cited section
governs the bringing of suits against them.
The detect in the argument IS that the
statute does not embrace sureties generally,
but applies only to the parties enumerated,
to-wit: makers, acceptOrs, drawers and en-
dorsers of bills Of exchange and promissory
notes, and prescribes the order and method
of iu7tituting suits on commercial paper,
namely, by suing in the county of his resi-
denca the party primarily bound, a. shown
by the face of the paper.
When the suit has ripened into judg-
meat, it will be competent for the parties
to adjust the equities between themselves
and to show that one who appears to be
principal is really a surety; but, though
the holder Of the paper may know this, he
is not governed by it in bringing his action,
because the statute no where declares that
a surety can compel suit to be brought in
the county of the residence of the principal
debtor.
The plaintiff in instituting proceedings
looks alone to the face of the paper and sues
him who has there written himself down as
principal.
Notwithstanding the requirement that all
the parties shall be sued in a joint action,
it has been several times declared that this
provision is intended alone for the benefit
of those secondarily liable, and that the
primary debtor can not complain that the
secondary one is not Joined. McGrath V.
Hoops % Miss, 1876; Duncan V. Mcneil,
81 Miss, 704 Crump V. Wooten, Al Miss,
GIL. 46irmed
Shelton & Shelton, for plaintiffs in error.
w. 7. & j. b. Harris contra.
To be reported.