JOINT OBLIGATIONS AND JOINT TENANCY 2203

A motion for a non pros, under this section held properly overruled, the note in
question not being joint and several. See notes to art. 13, sec. 87. Leonard v. Union
Trust Co., 140 Md. 202.

The object of act of 1825, ch. 167, is to prevent costs. Where one of defendants is
dead, separate actions may be brought against survivor and representative of deceased.
Nor does this section prevent only one of obligors being sued, although all obligors are
alive and reside in same county. In such case, however, plaintiff will be non-suited
if he brings a second suit. (See sec. 3.) Blizzard v. Jacobs, 3 G. & J. 70.

Where declaration shows that there is a co-obligor, the non-joinder must be accounted
for, or declaration is bad. Kent v. Holliday, 17 Md. 393; State v. Wheeler, 14 Md. 109;
Merrick v. Bank of Metropolis, 8 Gill, 60. See also Annapolis, etc., Institution v.
Bannon, 68 Md. 461.

This section has no application to actions ex delicto. Mitchell v. Smith, 4 Md. 406.

This section has no application to an action on a covenant. Cruzer v. McKaig,
57 Md. 461.

See sec. 6.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 3. 1912, sec. 3. 1904, sec. 3. 1888, sec. 3. 1825, ch. 167, sec. 2.

3. If a joint obligor be dead when the suit is brought his representa-
tive may be sued.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 4. 1912, sec. 4. 1904, sec. 4. 1888, sec. 4. 1825, ch. 167, sec. 3.

4. If either of the obligors against whom a joint action shall be
brought shall die pending the same, the plaintiff may suggest such death
and the court shall cause the suggestion to be entered of record and shall
direct the clerk to docket an action as of the same term in which the sug-
gestion is entered in the name of the plaintiff against the obligor so dying;
and in such action the same proceedings shall be had to make the executor
or administrator of the deceased obligor a party thereto as if the original
action had been brought separately against all the obligors.

In an action against two defendants on a joint obligation, if one of them dies, it
is error to make administrator of deceased obligor a co-defendant in the same action;
and a judgment rendered against surviving obligor and such administrator will be
stricken out. Wolfe v. Murray, 96 Md. 738.

Object of this section. The creditor may sue both survivor and the representative,
but if there are more than one survivor living in same county, both must be joined
in one suit. Blizzard v. Jacobs, 3 G. & J. 67.

See sec. 11.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 5. 1912, sec. 5. 1904, sec. 5. 1888, sec. 5. 1825, ch. 167, sec. 4.

5. If any of the obligors against whom a joint action is brought and
judgment obtained thereon shall die after judgment, the plaintiff may
issue a scire facias on said judgment against the executors or administra-
tors of the deceased defendant and such judgment shall be had on the said
scire facias as if the judgment had been rendered in a separate action.
See sec. 11.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 6. 1912, sec. 6. 1904, sec. 6. 1888, sec. 6. 1825, ch. 167, sec. 7.

6. If the obligors in any bond, penal or single bill reside in different
counties they may be sued in the counties in which they respectively reside,
but all residing in the same county shall be sued in one action.

Where obligors live in different counties, creditor may sue ,in both or either. He
is restricted, however, to one suit in each county. Blizzard v. Jacobs, 3 G. & J. 72.

In a case under this section declaration must explain non-joinder of obligor living
in another county. Annapolis, etc., Institution v. Bannon, 68 Md. 461. See also Kent
v. Holliday, 17 Md. 393.

See sec. 2.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 7. 1912, sec. 7. 1904, sec. 7. 1888, sec. 7. 1825, ch. 167, sec. 8.

7. When any writ against joint and several obligors shall be returned
summoned as to one or more and non est as to the others the clerk may