Sec 805

Since it is necessary to constitute a contract that there should be two parties, an engagement by which a party undertakes with himself to do a particular thing cannot be called a contract.3 There cannot, therefore, be a freight contract, in the proper sense of the term, when a ship owner carries his own goods in his ship.4 Where an insurance company, also, had two departments, one for insurance technically and the other for the granting of annuities, it was held that one department could not insure the other, and that such an insurance was void.5 A party, also, buying a judgment against himself extinguishes the judgment, and a mortgagee purchasing the equity of redemption extinguishes the mortgage.6

Sec 806

The fact that other parties are joined in a joint indebtedness makes no difference, if striking out such other parties, the plaintiff would be virtually suing himself. The debtors are liable jointly, and extinguishing the debt as to one extinguishes it as to all.7 Hence it has been held that a note payable to the order of several persons, and endorsed by them to one of their number, was defectively endorsed, " for it is impossible for a person to sue himself, whether alone or jointly with others."8 It is otherwise, however, when a note is made by several persons jointly and severally. In such case " it is no answer to an action upon the several liability of one that the payee was one of the joint makers."

Party cannot contract with himself.

Jeining other parties makes no difference.

1 Leake, 2d ed. 4S7, citing Catling V. King, 46 L. J. C. 384.

2 Potter V. Dnffield, L. R. 18 Eq. 4.

3 Miller V. Woodfall, 8 E. & B. 493; Gumm V. Tyrie, 4 B. & S. 680; Faulkner V. Lowe, 2 Ex. 595. That one party cannot sign as the other party's agent, see Sharman V. Brandt, L. R. 6 Q. B. 720.

4 Leake, 2d ed. 438; Gumm V. Tyrie, 4 B. & S. 680; Mercantile Bk. V. Gladstone, L. R. 3 Ex. 233; see Keith V.

Burrows, L. R. 2 C. P. D. 163, L. R. 2 Ap. Ca. 636.

5 Grey V. Ellison, 1 Giff. 838.

6 Toulmin V. Steere, 3 Mer. 210; see Higgen's case, 6 Co. 446; King V. Hoare, 13 M. & W. 504.

7 Leake, 2d ed. 439; Moffat V. Van Millingen, 2 B. & P. 124 n.; De Tastet V. Shaw, 1 B. & Ad. 664.

8 Leake, 2d ed. 439; citing Main-waring V. Newman, 2 B. & P. 120.

9 Leake, 2d ed. 440, citing Beecham.

Sec 807

Although in equity a partner can call upon his co-partners to account, he cannot at law sue the partnership;1 the principle being that there can be no contract between a party and himself jointly with others.2 Nor can there be, at law, a contract between two partnerships which have a member common to both.3 - Where, after a marriage, the fathers of the husband and wife agreed to pay a specific allowance to the husband, and agreed, also, that the husband should have the right to sue for this allowance, it was held that the husband, who was not a party to the agreement, could not maintain on it a suit.4 sec 808. If a company passes a resolution to employ an officer at a salary, and he negotiates with the company for the salary, agreeing to give his time for the salary, he can sue the company for the salary. But if there is merely a resolution adopted by the company that a particular person shall receive certain emoluments, he cannot sue for such emoluments until he has entered into contractual relations with the company; nor can he sue for a wrongful dismissal.5 And articles of association that a mine is to be purchased at a certain price will not, without any negotiations between the parties, sustain a suit by the owner of the mine against the company.6 - When, however, the members of an association agree to subscribe certain sums to further a common object, and appoint a committee to collect the subscriptions due, the committee are entitled to sue for the ubscriptions.7

Partner cannot sue partnership at law.

Resolutions by a company to pay money to a third person do not entitle him to sue unless he personally negotiates with the company.

V. Smith, E. B. & E. 442. Joint and several covenants may be in like man-ner severed. Rose V. Poulton, 2 B. & Ad. 822.

1 De Tastet V. Shaw, 1 B. & Ald. 669; Morris's Est., L. R. 10 Ch. 68.

2 Leake, 2d ed. 440; Worrall V. Grayson, 1 M. & W. 166; Holmes V. Higgins, 1 B. & C. 74; Harvey V. Kay, 9 B. & C. 356.

3 Ibid.; Bosanquet V. Wray, 6 Taunt. 597.

4 Tweddle V. Atkinson, 1 B. & S. 393; see this case discussed, supra, sec 784 et seq.

5 Eley V. Assurance Co., L. R. 1 Ex. D. 88; see also Melhado V. Porto Alegre R. R., L. R. 9 C. P. 503.

6 Pritchard's case, L. R. 8 Ch. 956. 7 Carr V. Bartlett, 72 Me. 121; cited in full, supra, sec 528; Curry V. Rogers, 21 N. H. 247; Thompson V. Page, 1 Met. (Mass.) 565; Ives V. Sterling, 6 Met. (Mass.) 310; Watkins V. Eames, 9 Cush. 537; Athol Music Hall V. Carey,.