We recognize that under some circumstances the use of singular personal pronouns indicates a warrant which is joint and several. Holmes v. Partridge, 375 Ill. 521, 31 N.E.2d 948; Nash v. Clark, 310 Ill. App. 437, 34 N.E.2d 876. However, these cases are not applicable where the sole maker and the two guarantors signed in different capacities.
Since Peter Kanelos and Virginia Behensky are joint payees, the phrase "the payee or the holder" refers to both payees jointly. The contention of appellee that judgment on the note could be procured to be confessed by either or both of the named payees, relying on Nash v. Clark, 310 Ill. App. 437, 34 N.E.2d 876, cannot be sustained. The Nash case deals with joint and several obligors whereas the instant case involves joint obligees.
The reasoning of the court in the Minnis case was subsequently followed in Crane v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 369 Ill. 110, wherein Mr. Justice WILSON, speaking for the court, concluded the opinion as follows: "Upon the authority of paragraph (f) of section 92 of the Civil Practice act, ( Minnis v. Friend, 360 Ill. 328,) the judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed as to the defendant railway company, and the judgments of the circuit court and the judgment of the Appellate Court are reversed as to the defendant express agency." Appellate Court decisions followed the reasoning and decisions of the Supreme Court in these two cases in DeMay v. Brew, 317 Ill. App. 183, wherein it was held: "Under par. (f) of sec. 92 of the Civil Practice Act, a court of review has power, on appeal from a judgment for damages against joint tortfeasors, to reverse the judgment as to one and affirm as to the other [citing Crane v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., supra]"; in Nash v. Clark, 310 Ill. App. 437, where Minnis v. Friend was expressly cited and approved, and wherein the court concluded that the judgment against one of the defendants was null and void but that the judgment as to the others was legal and valid. See also Wuebbles v. Shea, 294 Ill. App. 157.
Section 92 of that act changed the rule. Minnis v. Friend, 360 Ill. 328; Adkins v. Strathmore Co., 278 Ill. App. 183, 185; Fogel v. 1324 N. Clark St. Bldg. Corp., 278 Ill. App. 286, 291, 292; Nash v. Clark, 310 Ill. App. 437, 442. It is quite true, as defendant points out, that section 92 is not expressly made applicable to judgments or decrees entered in nisi prius courts. However, it has never been held, so far as we are informed, in this court or the Supreme Court, either before or since the enactment of the statute, that where a judgment against two was void as to one of them because of lack of service, the judgment might not be amended to show that fact without setting the decree aside as to both.