case ex part Rowlandson Lord chancellor Talbot Eq can ab pl if a and b be bind  in a bind joint and several to I he may elect to sue they joint to several but  if he sue they joint Le can sue they several for the pendency of one suit may  be plead in abatement of the other by the same reason if a and b joint trader  become bankrupt and there be joint and separate commission take out against  they and a and b before the bankruptcy become joint and several bind to I S I  S may choose under which commission he will come but shall not come under both  the case be John Crosfield and James Birket be partner in trade and bind joint  and several in their joint and several bind to the petitioner Rowlandson that  of October a joint commission be award against Crosfield and Birket who be  find bankrupt and their estate and effect make over to assignee in trust for  their creditor afterward a separate commission be sue out against each of the  partner and each upon this commission be also find a bankrupt the petitioner  prove his debt under all three commission and receive a dividend under the  joint commission of shilling in the pound and have also apply to the peer  William commissioner under each of the separate commission to be let into his  dividend under such separate commission and be by they refuse in regard of his  have receive the same under the joint commission he now apply to the Lord  chancellor to be admit to receive his dividend under the separate as well as  under the joint commission the Lord chancellor at first incline to think that  the petitioner be a joint and a separate creditor ought to be at liberty to  come in under each of the commission provide he receive but a single  satisfaction but the next day his lordship hold that as at law when a and b be  bind joint and several to J S if I S sue a and b several he can sue they joint  and on the contrary if he sue they joint he cannotsue they several but the one  action may be plead in abatement of the other note if three be bind joint and  several the obligee can sue two of they joint for this be sue they neither  joint nor several roll Abr so by the same reason the petitioner in the present  case ought to be put to his election under which of the two commission he will  come and that he shall not be permit to come under both for then he will have  receive more than his share peer William er p but his lordship say he will  hear counsel if they have any thing to object against this order whereupon it  be now offer that it be true if at law two man be bind joint and several in a  bind to I S the obligee may either sue the bind joint against both or several  against each at his election but on his sue they joint and several at the same  time the pendency of one suit may be plead in abatement to the other but the  reason of this be for that if the obligee sue the obligors peer William joint  and recover judgement the plaintiff in such case be at liberty to take as well  the joint as the separate effect of each of the obligors in execution now in  such case he can have no more than all the effect of each consequent during  such joint suit it will be fruitless and indeed vexatious to bring a separate  action against each of the obligors but that nothing can be infer from hence  against a just creditor take under each of these commission the utmost  advantage allow he by law and that the bankruptcy of the debtor ought not to  hinder he of such advantage so as he do not receive a double satisfaction for  which purpose a case be cite as determine by the Lord king September where a  joint commission issue v stainer Jones and Prestland who be partner and  jointtraders and one rice Vaughan prove a debt of pound under the Commission  and receive a dividend of S in the pound afterward rice Vaughan have likewise  a separate bind from stainer for the same debt sue out a separate commission  for it against stainer and petition that the commissioner and assignee under  the joint commission may deliver up the separate effect of stainer in order  that the petitioner may receive a further satisfaction towards his debt out of  stainer separate estate on the other hand the joint creditor petition that the  separate commission may be supersede forasmuch as rice Vaughan on who petition  the separate commission have issue have be allow for the same debt under the  joint commission videlicet S in the pound but it be order that the assignee  under the joint commission shall deliver up the separate effect of stainer to  the end they may be apply to pay the separate bind peer William and it be  insist that this be a case in point for here rice Vaughan be a joint creditor  of all the partner and also a separate creditor of one and have prove his debt  and take his dividend under the joint commission notwithstanding which he be  allow relief as a separate creditor for the same debt but the Lord chancellor  observe this difference between the case in that which have be cite there be a  single bind give as a collateral security for the same debt by one of the  partner only but in the principal case the bind upon which the petitioner will  seek relief under the separate commission be not only for the same debt but  give by both the party and the plea in abatement will have be proper have the  bind be sue at the same time both as a joint and several bind which can be  where there be only a separate bind then take this to be the rule at law that  a joint and several bind can be sue at one and the same time both joint and  several but that the obligee must make his election so it ought to be he say  in the principal case and this will best answer the general end of the statute  concern bankrupt which provide that all debt shall be pay equal as in  conscience they be all equal that it be upon this foundation that debt of a  partnership have be order to be first pay out of the partnership effect and  that afterward the joint creditor when the separate creditor be satisfy may  come in upon the separate effect but not before vide horsey case ante and so v  ice line the separate creditor be to come first on the separate effect of the  partner and if these not sufficient then on the joint effect after the  partnership creditor be pay peer William and therefore that there may be a  equality in the principal case his lordship order that the petitioner shall  make his election whether he will come in for a satisfaction out of the  partnership or the separate effect but not out of both at the same time  however his have receive his dividend out of the joint effect on the joint  commission while this matter be in suspense be not to bind he and provide he  bring that back again he may come in for a satisfaction out of the separate  effect and he to have a month time to make his election fix part bind atk fix  part Blankenhagen cook bank law ex part Bentley Cox fix part Bevan Ves and Ves  ex part hay Ves fix part Liddel rise peer William er p