¶1It is not denied by the defendant that a surety is entitled to share in the benefit of the security taken by his co-surety. But he contends that his intestate was not the co-surety of the plaintiff; and relies upon the well settled rule, that the liability of successive indorsers upon a note is fixed by the contract which the position of their names upon the paper establishes, and that, unless by express agreement, one is not bound to contribute to a payment of the note by the other, even if both are accommodation indorsers. The principle is sound, but has no application to the case at bar. Stacy and Lane are not successive indorsers. They are joint indorsers. The note was made payable to their joint order, and could only be transferred by their joint act. Which name is first put upon the paper is therefore immaterial, as by the indorsement they incurred a joint esponsibility for the debt of the promisor. Each is therefore entitled to share in the security taken by the other.
¶2Decree according to the prayer of the plaintiff’s bill.