Shotwell v. Miller

If two are bnunil jointly and severally, and one pay the obligee one half the amount of the bond, and the obligee give him a bond of indemnity against the other half it is not a release, of both obligors,

THIS was an action of debt on a bond, dated in 1782 for .£700. and bound themselves jointly and severally. On the 5th of August 1786. Terril paid to Shotwell _£350, being half the principal money then due; and on the same day, Shotwell entered into a bond to Terril the said co-obligor, in _£700, with a condition (after reciting the payment of half the money, on the bond in question by Terril,) that if Shotwell should well and truly indemnify and save harmless the said Terril, from all suits, actions, and demands, on the bond in question, then the obligation to be void, &c. contended, that as Shotwell had in fact discharged Terril the co-obligor, it was by operation of law, a release of both; and they insisted that this bond to Terril must be construed as a release to him,, or at least as a covenant not to sue him; and to prevent circuity of action, must be taken as an acquittance. They cited the case of Clayton v. Kynaston (a) 1 Ray, 410, S. 0. cited Lacy v. Kinaston (a) Salh 575. S. C. 1 Show. 330. Comb. 123. Fitzgerrardv. Trant. (b)