
    Thos. Ives vs. Ch. Pickett, S. K. Oats, and Richard Griffith.
    . & B. gave a joint & several note to C. afterwards, by agreement with A. St-C. — X> signed his name to the same note, and C.. then brought an.action against A. B. and D. upon their joint and several note, tíiá court Held, that the plaintiff should fail, as his allegata and probata did not correspond. The' note not being a joint contract by 1). and A. & C.
    THIS was an action brought on a joint and several note. The note had been originally signed by Pickett fy Oats ; some (ime after its execution, and without the knowledge of Pickett, Rachel Griffith signed it, in consequence of some agreement between the plaintiff Oats and herself. — ■ The plaintiff declared upon a joint and several note by the three. The defendant contended that the plaintiff must fail, inasmuch as he had only proved a contract by Pickett and Oats.
    
    The objection was overruled, and the plaintiff had s. verdict.
    A motion was now submitted for a new trial.
    
      Clarke, Sol. for the motion.
    
      Williams, contra.
   Mr. Justice Huger

delivered the opinion of the court:

That a promise must be proved, as laid in the declaration, is not denied; but it is contended that the promise laid in this case has been proved. It is true that the plaintiff has proved that each of the defendants signed this note. But he has not proved that they jointly .signed it. The evidence on the contrary, distinctly shews that Pickett not only did not jointly, with Griffith, sign the note ; but that he knew not that it was signed by Griffith. He clearly made no contract jointly with Griffith,- and this is distinctly charged in the declaration.

The declaration charges Pickett with having entered into a joint promise with Griffith and Oats. Pickett in his plea denies it, and the evidence supports the plea.

A new trial must be ordered.

Justices Johnson, Notl and Richardson, concurred,.  