Sec 816

The question of the relationship of promisees to each other in this connection is one of construction.7 It has been said, indeed, that when the promisees have separate and unequal interests, then their claims are to be regarded as several.8 But this should yield to the general meaning of the document. Parties having separate and unequal interests may agree to become joint promisees; those having equal interests to become several promisees, and so with regard to debtors.9 But when the interest of the promisees is entire, and the debt is limited to them in aggregate, the inference is that the obligation is joint.10

Question one of construction and parol explanation.

1 Geer V. Richmond, 6 Vt. 76; Cata-wissa R. R. V. Titus, 49 Penn. St. 277; Quisenberry V. Artis, 1 Duvall, 30.

2 Byrne V. Fitzhugh, 1 C. M. & R. 613; see Hall V. Leigh, 8 Cranch, 50; Blanchard V. Dyer, 21 Me. Ill; Pearson V. Parker, 3 N. H. 366; Smith V. Talcott, 21 Wend. 202; Settembre V. Putnam, 30 Cal. 490.

3 Ship Potomac in re, 2 Black. 581; Hall V. Leigh, 8 Cranch, 50; Bunker V. Tufts, 55 Me. 180; Sharp V. Conk-ling, 16 Vt. 355; Yates V. Foot, 12 Johns. 1; Fanble V. Davis, 48 Iowa, 462; Jones V. Etheridge, 6 Port. 208.

4 Parties (Am. ed. 1879), 106.

5 Hill V. Tucker, 1 Taunt. 7; Chanter V. Leese, 4 M. & W. 295; Lucas V. Beale, 10 C. B. 739.

6 Lush, Practice, 3d ed. 21; Jones V. Robinson, 1 Exch. 454; Agacio V. Forbes, 14 Moo. P. C. 160.

7 Supra, sec 641 et seq., 803.

8 Shep. Touch. 166, Preston's note; Serrante V. James, 10 B. & C. 410; Eccleston V. Clipsham, 1 Wms. Saund. 153; Ludlow V. McCrea, 1 Wend. 828: Phillips V. Bonsall, 2 Binn. 13S.

9 Mills V. Ladbroke, 7 M. & G. 28; Poole V. Hill, 6 M. & W. 835; Hall V. Leigh, 8 Cranch, 50.

10 Lane V. Drinkwater, 1 C. M. & R. 613; May V. May, 1 C. & P. 44; Pickering V. De Rochemont, 45 N. H. 7(3.

The distinction is illustrated by rulings to the effect that when a payment is made by several from a joint fund, belonging to them in solido, they must join in a suit for reimbursement; but that it is otherwise if the payment, though joint, is made up by the contributors from their individual means.1 When sureties, also, pay a debt jointly, and this is all that appears in the transaction, they must join in the action against their principal;2 but this yields to any inferences that the payment was by individual separate contribution, in which case each surety is to sue separately.3 - Where the intention is that the promisees are to have separate interests, then their claims are to be construed as several. Such is the case with composition deeds by debtors giving each promisee a distinct interest;4 and when distinct and inconsistent duties are to be performed to the promisees individually, this implies severance.5 - A note payable to A. or B. has been held to make A. and B. joint payees.6 - Parol evidence, also, in case of latent ambiguities, is admissible to explain the relations of the parties.7