Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/539

 promisee for the whole indebtedness or liability, neither is bound by himself but all of them are bound jointly to the full extent of the promise. 9 Cyc. p. 653; Clemens v. Miller, 13 N. D. 176; 100 N. W. 239; Grovenor v. Signor, 10 N. D. 503; Aamoth v. Hunter, 33 N. D. 582.

Harvey J. Miller, for respondents.

“To preclude the assignment of rights arising out of a contract, it must appear that a relation of personal confidence is involved in the nature of the rights themselves.” Roehm v. Horst, 20 Sup. Ct. 780, 178 U. S. 1,5 C. J. 880-2; in re: Wright, 157 Fed. 544; 18 L. R. A. N. S. 193.

In interpreting the terms of a contract of suretyship, the same rules are to be observed as in the case of other contracts. § 6678C. L. 1913 of N. D.

An account, claim, debt, or demand is liquidated when it appears that something is due and how much is due.

Kennedy v. Queens Co. 62 N. Y. Suppl. 276. When the amount due is fixed by law or has been ascertained and agreed upon by the parties. 116 Ia. 535, 90 N. W. 338.

, J. This suit is based on a written lease of the Gardner Hotel property in New England and on a bond to pay the rent and on an assignment of the lease and bond. The lease was for one year from December 15, 1916. The lessees covenanted to pay the lessor, his heirs or assigns, as rent for the use of the property, $375 a month. To secure the same the lessees, Davis and wife, with the appellants as sureties, made to the lessor an undertaking in the sum of $1,500 to pay the rents. The lease was attached to and made a part of the bond or undertaking.

On August 30, 1917, the lessor did in writing transfer to L. L. Gardner, for the use of himself and his co-plaintiff, the lease and bond, with all sums due or to become due thereon. This action is based on the lease, the bond, and the transfer. The judgment is for the precise amount of rent due on the lease, viz. $594.48, with interest. There being no facts in dispute, both parties moved for a directed verdict, and the court dis- missed the jury and gave judgment for the plaintiff.

Appellant relies on three points or propositions:

(1) That the bond is not assignable.

(2) That the bond is a joint obligation, and the principals should have been joined as parties defendant.