OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. 361 Term, 1857] Purefoy vs. Hill & Co. PIIREFOY VS. HILL & A discontinuance as to one of several defendants, served with process, in an action upon a joint and several promissory note, is a discontinuance as to all_ (Jester vs Hooper, 13 Ark 47, and previous cases.) Appeal from Hie Circuit Court of Ouaclnta county. The Hon. ABNER A. SMITH, Circuit Judge. Strain for the appellant. Watkins & Gallagher for the appellees. Mr. Justice Hanly delivered the opinion of the Court. This was assumpsit brought by the appellees, against the appellant and one William E. Hundley, on a joint and several prornissory i note, to the October term of the Ouachita Circuit Court. 1855. Summons returned duly exoontPd nn bnth dpfPndants. The rponrd shows that at the return term, the appellant made default, and at the same term, the appellees, by attorney, appeared and discontinued the action as to Hundley, and took judgment final, by default, against the appellant, for the amount of the note, including interest in damages, and costs. Purefoy then appeared and appealed to this Court, and assigns for error the discontinuance as to Hundley, his 'co-defendant in the Court below, and the rendering of judgment against-himself ; insisting, as he does, that the discontinuance as to his. co-defendant operated as a discontinuance as to him.
CASES IA THE SLTPILEAlE COLTI:T Purefoy vs, Hill & Co- [January The question presented by the oid in this Cause- is no longer an open one in this State. It is well settled under our statute, tlatt a person havi le , a cause of vtion, cr contract:I 1, against several, may sue one, any or all of them at ins pleasure; yet, it he sue more than one, he thereby elects to treat the contract as joint and a discontina-once as to one defendant, who has fieen served with process operate, as a discontinuance of the suit as to all the other defendants. See Ftaz,ieL et al State Bank, 4 Ark. IL 509 Hardy vs. Real Estate Bank, same 600 Beebe vs. R. E. Bank, same 552; Hutchings et al. vs. IL E_ Bank, same 517; Ashley vs. Hyde & Goodrich, 1 Eng R. 96-'7 ; Pleasants vs, State Bank, Eng. R. 450; Jester vs. Hooper, 13 Ark_ IL 47 Sillivauit & Thom vs. Reardim, 5 Ark. R. 153. The appellees having discontinued their action against Hand-ley, one of the defendants, who was also duly served with iffo-cess, must be held_ as having discontinued i.l ` n to the appellant, the other defendant in the Court below. The judgment of the Ouachita Circuit Court in this behalf is. therefore, reversed, and the cause remanded to be proceeded in. •
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.