
    Knickerbacker against Colver. The Same against Hawes.
    A NON*BAILABLE capias ad respondendum was issued *** f against Oolver and Hawes jointly at the suit of the plain- ^ f°r a false imprisonment committed by Hawes. The plaintiffs attorney received separate notices of retainer, *by attorney f°r Oolver and another for Háwes; whereupon he declared separately against the defendants, and is* SU6S were joined, and the cause carried down for trial at the circuit, as if the suits had been commenced by'separate . , . _ . , . . . - . process against each. At the circuit, the plaintiff and defen(^ants agreed that these causes should abide the event of another cause depending on the same questions, wherein, if ^.plaintiff finally succeeded, the defendants# should each give a cognovit for $5. The other plaintiff succeeded, and the cognovits were given accordingly. The plaintiff then tax* e(l costs as m two separate actions, perfecting judgment against each, not only for the costs' but the damages, and suing out executions for the whole against each. The plain* ^ had discharged Hawes as to the judgment and execution against him ; and now
    Two joint crt/SD&SSSrs were sued by Liiabfe8cap°ad peared^by parate attorproceedings1116 were several for the trespass against each, ges^y5confession, and full each. 8Saone hating paid^ or charged from Md thSa?hfs discharged the plaintiff might costs^of each13
    Here were two separate suits for the same trespass. In such case, the plaintiff may elect de mdioribim damnis; but can have only one satisfac-
    non-bailable pro-several fJnti? against them severally.
    
      Williams
    
    moved that satisfaction be' entered on the , judgment roll against Oolver.
    
      A. L. Jordan, contra,
    cited 3 John. 530; 4 T. R. 695.
   Curia.

Where the process is not bailable, it may go against any number of defendants jointly; and yet the plamtiff may declare against them severally. (3 John. 538; l T. E. 696[697. l B * P. 49; 6 B. * P. 82.)

By the course of proceeding, these suits became separate tQ eyery purpose; and are not to be considered as a joint suit defended by each defendant sirnvl cum the other. The defendants are to be treated as joint trespassers sued separately, in which case the plaintiff can' have but one satis* faction; but he may assess damages separately; and then elect de melioribus damnis, and recover costs against . ° The plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to recover his damages but once ; and having either received them from Hawes, or discharged him without payment, that act must be considered a satisfaction or release of the damages as to both. The plaintiff ought not to collect the damages on the other execution. The five dollars damages must be indorsed satisfied on that; but the costs may be collected.

Eule accordingly.  