
    [91] [*] WINANS against J. and W. DENMAN.
    OX CEBTIOEAEI.
    Insufficient demand. Joint action lies not, for injury to one.
    The state of demand exhibited to the justice below, was as follows:
    
      
    
    Joseph Denman demands of Isaac Winans forty dollars, damages for converting to the use of said Isaac, a bond of him the said Joseph.
    After a trial by jury, and verdict, a judgment was rendered for the plaintiff below, for $25. Two reasons were assigned for the reversal of this judgment.
    1st. because the demand filed by the plaintiffs below, is uncertain, and contains no cause of action whatever; nor does it appear that the said William ought to have been a party to the suit. i
    
    2d. Because the said action was brought to recover damages for the detention of a bond given by the plaintiffs [†] below, to the defendant below, which the said plaintiffs alleged they had paid off, whereas, no action lies for any such thing.
   By the Court.

— This judgment cannot, by any rule of law, be sustained. The state of demand does not set out a legal cause of action, even if it was alleged as an injury done to both the plaintiffs; further, a joint cause of action is not even alleged, but an injury to one of the defendants in this court, only, is stated. Two men cannot join in an action for an injury done to one of them only.

Judgment reversed.  