NIL

Continental Illinois Bank vs Clement

North, J

Defendant, 1 of 2 makers of a PN argues that plaintiff cannot recover against

him because their liability is joint and the other maker is not impleaded as
defendant. The Court disagreed and found that the other maker need not be
impleaded as two persons who sign a PN worded in the singular are liable
severally therefore collection may be made against either one.

DOCTRINE
A promissory note worded in singular but signed by two persons is a joint and
several obligation of those who signed.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Belle Clemente- defendant, one of the two signatories
Byron Thorpe- the other signatory
Continental- plaintiff

FACTS
1. Clement urges that the note is a joint obligation and that plaintiff cannot
recover because Thorpe – the other signatory was not made a party
defendant.
2. The PN is reproduced in the case, the important part being that both
Thorpe and Clement signed it as makers.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. W/n Cement’s should be sued together with Thorpe- No,
a. The SC of Michigan ruled according to the NIL of the state. “Where
an instrument containing words ‘I promise to pay.’ Is signed by two
or more persons, they are deemed to be jointly and severally liable
thereon.”
b. If an instrument worded in the singular is executed by several, the
obligation is a joint and several one.
c. In the instant case, several verbs agree with a subject in the
singular, not in the plural.
d. Each (not both) of the undersigned promises to pay.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
The judgment of the circuit court is set aside, and the case remanded with
direction to enter judgment upon and in accordance with the verdict of the jury.