
    TOBY & CO. vs. HART ET AL.
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
    When several persons, residing in different parishes, contract a joint obligation, they must all be sued jointly, and judgment rendered against each for his portion; but they may all be sued at the domicil of any one of them, which is an exception to the general rule, and they are considered as having waived their personal privilege to be sued at their domicil.
    The plaintiffs instituted suit as the holders, and for the recovery of the amount of the following note ;
    “ $1200 JVew-Orleans, 20th July, 1832.
    “ Two years after date, we promise to pay to the order of J. H. Krofft, at the United States Branch Bank in' this city, twelve hundred dollars, for value received.
    “H. M. Hart,
    “H. M. Hyams.
    Endorsed, “ J. H. Krofft, Thomas Toby, J. H. Field, & Co.”
    The defendants severed in their answers. Hart admitted his signature, and averred he could only be jointly liable in any event, for his portion of the note, and set up sundry matters in defence. Hyams pleaded an exception, that he had his domicil in the parish of Ascension, and could not be sued in the parish of Orleans. The exception was overruled.
    When several Fn different'par? jofot’oMi'gSfon'1 they must ail be judgmem^’reneach for hlf portion; but they muy fill be sued at the domicil of wSichls^n'exl ceptiou to the sjGnGPfil rule and they are eoiisidtvalvedthefopei? sonai privilege, to be sued at their domicil,
    Judgment was rendered against the defendants, jointly and severally, for the amount of the note sued on. * Both of them appealed.
    
      Carleton and Lockett, for the plaintiffs.
    
      L. Janin and Benjamin, for the defendants.
   Bullard, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant assigns for errors apparent on the face of the record, first, that the plea of Hyams to the jurisdiction of the court was improperly overruled, and second, that the judgment is in solido, on a joint obligation.

I. The first assignment, we think, cannot avail the party. The obligation on which the suit is brought, is manifestly a joint one, and the 2080th article of the La. Code, requires that in every suit on a joint'contract, all the obligors must be made defendants, and no judgment can be found against any, un^ess it can be proved that all joined in the obligation, or are by law presumed to have done so.” When several persons, residing in different parishes, contract a joint obligation, the °bligee would be altogether without remedy against either, if each could avail himself of his privilege to be sued onlv x c? «> within his own parish. We are bound to consider a case of jomt obligation as an exception to the rule, rather than to 0™ such effect to a law regulating the jurisdiction of the' 0 <_< v> courts ratione personarum, as would effectually render nugatory su°h joint obligations. Parties contracting under such circumstances, may rather be considered as having waived their y , J, ° personal privilege.

II. The second assignment is well taken, and we presume the judgment was entered up in solido through inadvertence. But we think ourselves bound to amend in this particular.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be reversed, and that the plaintiffs recover from each of the defendants, the sum of six hundred and one dollars seventy-five cents, with legal interest on the amount of the note from the 29th of February, 1884, and costs in the District Court, and that the plaintiffs and appellants pay the costs of appeal.  