case Madox versus Jackson February see Creasor v Robinson Beav three obligors  in a bind the obligee bring the principal and the representative of one of the  surety before the court and by his bill state the three be dead insolvent on  the circumstance of this case the objection for the want of party overrule in  the present case there be three obligors in a bind the plaintiff the obligee  have bring only one obligor before the court and the representative of another  but not of the three because the bill state that he be dead insolvent a  objection be make for want of party by one of the defendant who insist that  the representative of Watson the three obligor ought to have be make a party  for it be possible he may have pay off the bind or at least if before the  court may contribute his part towards payment of the bind the plaintiff  counsel in answer say that all the defendant believe that Watson the decease  obligor die insolvent atkins and that it appear in the cause the defendant  Jackson be the principal obligor in the bind so that the other two be only  surety Lord chancellor the general rule of the court to be sure be where a  debt be joint and several the plaintiff must bring each of the debtor before  the court because they be entitle to the assistance of each other in take the  account say vide Collins v Griffith p W another reason be that the debtor be  entitle to a contribution where one pay more than his share of the debt a  further reason be if there be different fund as where the debt be a specialty  and he may at law sue either the heir or executor for satisfaction he must  make both party as he may come in the last place upon the real asset vide  Galton v Hancock ante atk vol but there be exception to this and the exception  out of the first rule be that if some of the obligors be only surety there be  no pretence for the principal in the bind to say that the creditor ought to  bring the surety before the court unless he have pay the debt the exception  out of the second rule be that if there be no personal asset at all and this  fact appear plain in the cause there be no occasion to bring the  representative of that coobligor before the court atkins but this be a special  except case and therefore not within the rule but suppose it be a common case  and the bill have be bring by the representative of Manby one of the surety in  the bind whether it be necessary to make the representative of Watson a party  as to take of the account it be quite out of the case by admission of the  defendant that the bind be not pay nor any part of the principal and interest  so that here be no ground to make the representative of Watson a party in  order to assist he in take the account the other pretence be in order for a  contribution it be admit by all the answer that Watson be dead insolvent and  therefore differ atkins er p from the case of Ashurst versus Eyre ante atk vol  S c ante atk S c determine before I upon a plea for though there be a  admission of insolvency in that case yet it do not appear whether the  principal or interest may not have be pay by the coobligor who be not before  the court and that be the reason of allow the plea there can be no particular  administration to Watson here for that must be to a particular subject belong  to the estate of the intestate but as he be dead insolvent there can be  nothing but a general administration and therefore on the circumstance of this  case Lord Hardwicke overrule the objection for want of party