delivered the following opinion of the Court: —

This was an action of debt. The plaintiffs declared against the defendant, as on a note signed by C. Stump, without noticing in the declaration that the note was signed by C. Stump thus, “ C. Stump & Co.” In evidence, the plaintiffs produced a note signed “ C. Stump & Co.” This evidence was objected to in the Court below; the objection was sustained by the Circuit Court, and the evidence excluded.

Exception was taken to that opinion; and the only question is, whether it was correct.

As the law stood, at the time this note was given and action brought, all joint obligations and assumptions were made by statute, joint and several. The Court understands the law to be long settled, that on a several obligation, executed or given by two or more, the obligee or payee may sue any one, without taking any notice of the others, either in the writ or declaration.

*375 The evidence was proper, and therefore the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for another trial, when the note is to be read in evidence, on its execution being proved. See 1 Strange, 7 6.