COUNSEL: This action being brought by copartners, no evidence of an indebtedness to one of the plaintiffs only was admissible, and no judgment in favor of one of the plaintiffs could be rendered upon proof that the note was executed to him individually. (Coles v. Campbell , 3 Cal. 191; McCord v. Seale , 56 Cal. 262; People v. Haggin , 57 Cal. 579; Estabrook v. Messersmith , 18 Wis. 545; Frans v. Young, 24 Iowa 375; Benkshire v. Schulz , 25 Ind. 523; Lipperd v. Edwards , 39 Ind. 165; Butges v. O'Neil, 13 Ohio St. 72; Curry v. Roundtree , 51 Cal. 184; McGregor v. Cleveland, 5 Wend. 476; Graves v. Boston Marine Ins. Co ., 2 Cranch, 419.) J.
The amount for which he finally obtains judgment against the other defendant would be the total amount of damage that in the opinion of the trial court or jury the plaintiff had suffered from the wrongful act of both defendants. The case of Curry v. Roundtree, 51 Cal. 184, cited by appellant, was an action against three alleged copartners jointly on a partnership demand and is not in point. (See Harrison v. McCormack, 69 Cal. 620, [11 P. 456].)
(Raun v. Reynolds , 15 Cal. 459; Gage v. Rogers , 20 Cal. 91; Lamping v. Hyatt , 27 Cal. 102; Gautier v. English , 29 Cal. 168; Parrott v. Den , 34 Cal. 79.) The three defendants being sued jointly as copartners, the clerk had no authority to enter judgment by default against two of them. (Curry v. Roundtree , 51 Cal. 184, 186; McCord v. Seale , 56 Cal. 262.) J.
To the same effect is Cole v. Roebling Const. Co., 156 Cal. 443, 445 [ 105 P. 255], as applied to joint tortfeasors. [3] In Curry v. Roundtree, 51 Cal. 184, and Harrison v. McCormick, 69 Cal. 616 [ 11 P. 456], it was held that a different rule seems to apply in actions against several copartners alleged to be jointly liable on a partnership contract. In the Harrison case it is said, quoting from the syllabus: