
    Sigony v. Richards and Buel, Traders in Company.
    In an action against two, trpo-n a note wliicli on the face of it, is joint and several, and so declared upon, it is not a material variance, that upon oyer it appears to he signed hy one only for self and partner.
    Action on a note, declaring that the defendants in and hy a certain note, etc. jointly and severally promised to pay to him, etc. Bichareis prays oyer of the note and pleads in abatement; that there is a material variance between the note declared upon and the note shown on oyer; for that the note shown on oyer appears to have been executed by Buel only, for himself and Richards; and that he could not hind Richards severally although the note is so expressed. Demurrer.
    Judgment — Plea insufficient.
   The note is expressly joint and several. The plaintiff has declared upon it truly, as it is expressed to bo on the face of it; there is therefore no variance.

Whether Buel had authority to bind Richards his co-partner, severally or not, may depend upon circumstances, which might he disclosed in an. action, brought against him severally; but this is a joint action brought against both, in which that question doth not arise.  