The Hawaiian gazette., 1893-10-31

with process, it could not be entered
at all in a JOINT action unless all the
defendants were served. But by
statutes known as "Jointdebtor Acts
in most Of the United States judg
ment may be entered against all the
defendants jointly, though some were
not served, to be enforceable, how
ever. only against the joint property
of all and the separate property of
those served. See Black, Judgments,
Sections 233- 235; Freeman, Judg-
ments, Sections 1914. By Section
1105 of our Civil Code. ut shall be
necessary to join as defendants IN a
civil case. all the Joint
makers of promissory notes : &
but it shall in no case be necessary
to serve all of the joint parties sued
with process. Service of process up
on one of several defendants at law,
shall be legal service upon all for the
purposes of appearance in Court,
and iugdment may be entered against
all such co-defendants thereon: pro-
vided, however, that no execution
shall issue against the sole property
of any joint defendant on whom pro
cess was not duly served as afore-
said" In this case, eight of the nine
defendants below were served with
process, and judgment was entered
against all. Execution has not yet
issued. We are of the opinion that
the judgment was properly entered
in accordance with the provisions
of the statute. 1t is admitted that
the judgment is joint, but it is as
signed as error that it is
several as well as JOINT and
that it should be Joint only.
By this it may be inferred that coun-
sci would have the word Jointly" in
serted in the judgment after the word
defendants" SO that the judgment
would read, "that the plaintiff do re-
cover of the defendants jointly"
etc We find no ground for this in
the statute, which provides simply |
that Judgment may be entered |
against all such eo-defendants;" and,
aside from the statute, a judgment,
though rendered upon a joint cause
of action, is itself joint and several
obligation. An action can be main
tanned upon it against each of the
judgment debtors separately. Black,
Judgments, Section 30. And execu-
ton may issue against the separate
of each; otherwise, if there
were no joint property as would gen
orally be the case unless the defend
ants were partners, the. Judgment
could not be satisfied, and the orr
yinal claim sued upon as we'll as the
would be practically worth
ess. The distinction between Joint
and several judgments does not lie
n the nature of the obligation, that
s, whether it is q joint or several
nor does it depend upon
What property may be taken in exc
,ution, that is, whether joint or
property; but joint judg-
nent against co defendants is merely
judgment against all, all being
ointly and severally liable, if served
With process, to the full extent of the l
and several Judgment is c
merely separate Judgment against
me or more but not all of the code
where judgment is en- 6
cred against one or more by default,
nd against the others after trial, or t
7here judgment for different amounts G
5 entered against the defendants ]
epsrstely. A several judgment I
annot, of course, in the absence t
f statutory authority, be rem !
cred, except upon a several or a \
pint and several obligation. In the !
resent case the judgment, being !
pom joint obligation, was properly
endered against all the defendants, d
hat is, it is joint judgment, though s
is joint and several obligation. j
Judgment affirmed. a
Q. Creighton for plaintiff in error; t
). Brown for defendant in error. a
Honolulu, October IL, 1893. il