v. Johnson, 50 Ark. 62,68. W. Rep. 231; Braxton v. State, 25 Ind. 82; Myers v. State, 47 Ind. 293. Should we hold that the obligation of co-partners is several as well as joint under our statute, it is possible that we would reach the conclusion that under the provisions of our Code there was no error even in form in the judgment. The objection to proceeding against the survivor and the representative of the deceased was that a joint judgment could not be rendered against them, and there was no power in the court to render several judgments in the same action. But under the reform system such practice it seems is permitted. §§ 4901 subd. 3, and 5096. Comp. Laws; Burgoyne v. Trust Co., 5 Ohio St. 586; Parker v. Jackson, 16 Barb. 33; Arthur v. Griswold, 60 N. Y. 143-145. Nor is the plaintiff any longer bound to treat all the defendants either as jointly or as severally liable, and proceed against each separately or all jointly. He may sue all or any number in the same action, when they are severally liable. § 4880 Comp. Laws. The action under such a system is treated as embodying a separate claim against each defendant, all bound together in the same proceeding. Burgoyne vy. Trust Co., 5 Ohio St. 580. Whether the debt of a partnership is joint only or joint and several we do not determine. See §§ 3425, 3574, 4051, 4901, subd. 4 Comp. Laws.
Even without statutory change a partnership obligation, though only joint at law, is in equity, for the purpose of preventing a discharge of the estate of a deceased partner from liability, regarded as joint and several. All the cases agree that the representative of the deceased partner may be proceeded against in equity, and only in equity; but some of them rule that the action will lie against him only after it appears that the survivors are insolvent, or after the remedy against them has been exhausted, while others hold that the action miay be brought immediately, and without proving such insolvency, See Doggett v. Dill, 108 Ill. 560. The obligation of a partnership being joint and several only in equity, and the representative being liable only in that forum, it might with some force be urged that for that reason the representative and the survivor could not both be proceeded against in an action at law. But
