WATKINS v. WORTHINGTON. 523

secondly, where it plainly appears and is admitted, that nothing
has been paid, and that the co-obligor is insolvent; thirdly, where
it clearly appears and is admitted, that there are no personal assets,
the personal representative need not be made a party; and lastly,
where the creditor had obtained judgment at law against the one
of the several obligors who is the defendant in equity, it is not ne-
cessary to bring the other obligors before the court, because the
bond is drowned in the judgment, (r)

But the cases in which this general rule is laid down, do not
profess to declare, that the obligee, on a joint and several bond,
may not sue one or both obligors; but that he may, if he pleases,
sue one only, or all, as at law. For, if it were not so, there
would be no difference in equity betwixt a joint bond, and one
joint and several; and if any of the obligors have paid all or a
part, the obligor who is sued, or his representative must bring a
bill and have it allowed; and it must also lie upon him to compel
the other obligors to contribute towards payment of the debt;
not upon the creditor who lent his money upon a security that
enabled him to sue the obligors severally, if he should think fit;
and indeed, if it were otherwise, that which was intended to
strengthen the security would tend to hurt it extremely; for the
creditor might not be able to find out all who might thus be bound
to him; because by the same reason, that all the other obligors
themselves must be sued, if any of them were dead, their heirs as
well as executors must be made parties; and then, as it would be
difficult to commence the suit; so the suit, when commenced,
would be subject to continual abatements, which would be a great
difficulty on an honest creditor who had fairly lent his money, (y)

But if these principles are to be sustained by any thing to be
deduced from this general rule, that all persons interested must be
made parties; then it would be indispensably necessary, in every
creditor's suit, when a creditor presented a claim, for the satisfac-
tion of which the deceased with others had been bound, that such
creditor should be permitted and required, in some way, to make
all the co-obligors of the deceased parties to the same case; for

(a:) Jackson v. Rawlins, 2 Vern. 195; Galton v. Hancock, 2 Atk. 436; Madox v.
Jackson, 3 Atk. 406; Angerstein v. Clark, 2 Dick. 738; Cockbum v. Thompson,
16 Ves. 326; Morrice v. The Bank, Ca. Tern. Tal. 222; Higgens' Case, 6 Co. 45;
Bidleson v. Whytel, 3 Burr. 1548; Drake v. Mitchell, S East. 258; Riddle v. Man-
deville. 5 Cran. S30.—(y) Collins v. Griffith, 2 P. Will. 313; Ex parte Rowlandson,
3 P. Will. 405; Haywood v. Ovey, 6 Mad. 113.