Definition
A bond executed by two or more obligors who bind themselves both collectively and individually to the obligee. The obligee holds the option of pursuing the obligors together in a single joint action or pursuing any one of them separately in an individual action for the full amount owed. The bond does not require the obligee to choose between remedies in advance — the structure of the instrument preserves both avenues simultaneously.
The defining characteristic is the dual obligation: each obligor is liable as though they were the only one who signed, and all are liable together as a unit. If one obligor is judgment-proof or unavailable, the obligee may proceed against any remaining obligor for the entire debt without first exhausting remedies against the others.
One important limitation: as Bouvier's states precisely, the obligee cannot treat the bond as joint against some obligors and several against others simultaneously. The election operates at the level of the action, not the individual obligor.
Common Confusion
JOINT AND SEVERAL BOND vs. JOINT BOND: A joint bond binds all obligors collectively but not individually. An obligee holding a joint bond must sue all obligors together; the death of one obligor or the discharge of another can complicate or defeat the action. A joint and several bond removes that trap entirely by preserving the several avenue. Researchers encountering older instruments should not assume that a bond signed by multiple parties carries several liability — the instrument must expressly provide for it.
JOINT AND SEVERAL BOND vs. SURETY BOND: A surety bond involves a primary obligor and a secondary guarantor whose liability is contingent. A joint and several bond places all obligors on equal footing with no hierarchy of liability. The distinction matters in bankruptcy and collection proceedings.
Why It Matters in Research
The joint and several bond is the mechanism by which joint and several liability — a doctrine with a long and contested history — operates in the context of formal written obligations. Researchers moving between eras need to be alert to three issues.
First, enforcement options shifted with procedural reforms. Under common law pleading, the choice between joint and several action was not merely strategic but could be outcome-determinative: a joint action that failed because one obligor had died, been discharged in bankruptcy, or could not be served might leave the obligee without recourse. The joint and several bond was drafted precisely to avoid this. As courts of equity developed and later as code pleading displaced common law forms, the procedural stakes changed, and some of the instrument's protective value was absorbed into procedural rules rather than contract drafting.
Second, the instrument appears frequently in commercial, probate, and government contracting contexts across the nineteenth century. Executors, administrators, public officers, and contractors were routinely required to post bonds with multiple co-obligors. Whether those bonds were joint, several, or joint and several determines what remedies the obligee (often the state or a beneficiary) held. Historical sources do not always label the instrument correctly, and researchers should examine the operative language rather than the caption.
Third, the Rapalje & Lawrence entry for this term is unhelpful as a standalone source — it cross-references related liability concepts but does not define the bond instrument itself. Researchers relying on Rapalje should supplement with Black's or Bouvier's for the substantive definition.
Historical Dictionary Support
The four source dictionaries agree on the essential structure: multiple obligors, dual liability, dual enforcement option. Black's and Burrill's offer nearly identical formulations, which reflects their shared derivation from common law sources. Bouvier's is the most precise of the group, adding the critical clarification that the obligee cannot selectively treat the bond as joint against some obligors and several against others within the same action — a nuance the others omit.
Rapalje & Lawrence does not provide a usable entry for this term specifically, instead directing the reader to related liability concepts. This is consistent with Rapalje's general tendency to cross-reference rather than define, and it limits the dictionary's utility for researchers seeking instrument-level analysis.
None of the historical dictionaries address the evolution of the instrument under reformed procedure codes or the effect of statutory modifications to joint and several liability that began in earnest in the late twentieth century. For those questions, the historical dictionaries are silent and researchers must look to treatises and statutory compilations.
Jurisdictional Note
Several U.S. jurisdictions have modified or abolished joint and several liability by statute in tort contexts, but these reforms generally operate on liability rules rather than on the enforcement mechanics of express bond instruments. A bond that is drafted as joint and several typically remains enforceable as such regardless of tort reform legislation. Researchers should verify whether a jurisdiction's statutory changes reach contractual obligations or are limited to tort judgments.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia: Vicarious Liability and Joint Tort Liability — Joint and Several Liability (torts_147); Several Liability — Proportionate Share (torts_148)