coke b SLINGSBYS case mich Elizabeth n a Writ of error in the exchequer  Chamber see white v Tyndall App Cas a covenant with several et cum  whithersoever you please where you will the dawn be a several covenant only  where there be several interest where the interest be joint the word cum  whithersoever you please et where you will the dawn be void and the covenant  be joint a interest can be grant joint and several but a power or authority  may be joint and several SC Leon S p queen SC Leon SC Jenk cent Slingsby and  Frances his wife bring a action of covenant in the king bench against Roger  Beckwith and declare on a indenture tripartite between the defendant Roger  Beckwith of the first part William vavasor Francis Slingsby and Elizabeth  sister of the say Roger of the second part and George Harvey and the say  Frances then his wife another of the sister of the say Roger of the three part  and declare that the say Roger Beckwith the defendant by the say indenture  Bulst a to come together to let go to go away ad cum speech will Francisco ad  cum prd Georgio Francisca wife he assignat nest ad cum whithersoever you  please where you will the dawn quod prd rogerus ad sigillationem deliberation  the same thence to be legitime solus seisitus de rectoria de Aldingfleet in  comEborum and on this covenant issue be join and the venire facias be de  vicinet castle Eborum and the issue by nisi prius be try for the plaintiff and  damage assess upon which judgement be give in the king bench and now in a writ  of error in Elizabeth c the exchequer Chamber before Anderon chief justice of  the common plea manhood chief baron of the exchequer Windham periam and Rhodes  justice of the common plea and gentleman and clark baron of the exchequer and  of the coif it be resolve that the say judgement be Leon jenk cent Bulst b  Bulst sand erroneous for it appear by the plaintiff own show in his  declaration that the plaintiff only can maintain a action of covenant but the  other covenantees ought to have Leon Leon b join in the action with they  notwithstanding these word ad cum Leon Leon c whithersoever you please where  you will the dawn for as to these word this difference be agree when it appear  by the declaration that every of the covenantees have or be to have a several  interest or estate there when the covenant be make with the coke a covenantees  cum whithersoever you please the dawn these word cum whithersoever you please  the dawn make the covenant several in respect of their several before b d  interest the general rule establish by the authority cite in the note to  Eccleston v Clipsham sand be wherever the interest of the covenantees be joint  although the covenant be in term joint and several the action follow the  nature of the interest and must be bring in the name of all the covenantees  but when the interest of the covenantees be several they may maintain separate  action although the language of the covenant be joint per curian wither v  Bircham barn Cress SC dow Ryl and Vid James v Emery price enys v Donnithorn  burr Southcote v hoar taunt duke of Northumberland v errington TR pale yellow  coy touch Bac ab coy d viii ab coy m a windham case ante p a Mathewsons case  post a and note ibidem a as if a man by indenture demise to jenk cent bridge  Skinner e a black acre to b coke report b er p white acre to c green acre and  covenant with they and whithersoever you please the dawn that he be Iawful  owner of all the say acre e in that case in respect of the say several  interest by the say word cum whithersoever you please the dawn the covenant be  make several but if he demise to they the acre joint then these word cum  whithersoever you please the dawn be void for a man by his covenant unless in  respect of several interest can make it first joint and then make it several  by the same or the like word cum whithersoever you please the dawn for  although sundry person may bind themselves whithersoever you please the dawn  and so the obligation shall be postea b f joint or several at the election of  the obligee yet a man can Brownl Yelv Henry b postea b g bind himself to three  and to each of they to make it joint or several at the election of several  person for one and the same cause for the court will be in doubt for which of  they to give judgement which the law will not suffer as it be hold in h b  there it appear that one bring a replevin against two person for a ox who make  several Plowd b Manxels case postea b r Fitzherbert avowry a avowries each by  himself in his own right and there by advice of all the justice both the  avowries abate for the inconveniency that if both the issue shall be find for  the avowants the court can not give judgement on they several for one and the  same thing also the covenantor in the case at bar will be diverse time charge  for one and the same thing and therefore the say word cum whithersoever you  please the dawn be in such case but word of amplification and abundance and  can sever the joint cause of action and it be also resolve that a raym  interest can not be grant joint and several as if a man grant proximam  advorationem jenk cent b or make a lease for year of land to two joint and  several this word several be void and they be jointtenants so if a man make a  feoff in fee by deed to three and warrant the land to they who the dawn this  warranty be joint and not several but in such case if their estate be several  their warranty shall be several accord but a power or authority as to make  livery jenk cent c or to sell c may be joint and several for there they have  not any interest or action but be as servant to other vide Elizabeth dyer Acc  sir before a and Benl dyer pl d Anthony coke case e covenant Leon before a e  Br livre in detinue and for this error the judgement be reverse another error  be assign concern the visne but as to that the court do not deliver any  opinion by stat Ann c every venire facias in civil case shall be award of the  body of the county since this Act it have be hold sufficient in a declaration  to allege a county for a venue without name a parish or place ware v boydell m  S b