The liability of two or more persons jointly concerned in
37 See Nicholson v. Revill, 4 Ad. & El. 675; Kearsley v. Cole, 16 M. & W. 128; Webb v. Hewitt, 3 K. & J. 438; Green v. Wynn, L. R. 4 Ch. 204.
38See cases in the preceding two notes and Bradford p. Prescott, 85 Me. 482, 27 Atl. 461.
39 Thompson v. lack, 3 C. B. 540,549.
40 North v. Wakefield, 13 Q. B. 536; Stevens v. Stevens, 5 Exch. 306.
41 Ex parte Good, 5 Ch. D. 46, 55; Carroll v. Corbitt, 67 Ala. 579; Parry Mfg. Co. v. dull (Ind. App.), 101
N. E. 756; Bradford v. Prescott, 85 Me. 482, 27 Atl. 461; Hale v. Spauld-ing, 145 Mass. 482,14 N. E. 634,1 Am. St. Rep. 475; Burke v Noble, 48 Pa. 168.
42 See, however, infra, Sec. 647, ad fin.
44 SeeSec. 218.
43 See infra. Sec.Sec. 1834 -1836.
44 See Drake v. Reed, 4 Stew, & P. (Ala.) 192; Miller v. Lloyd, 181 111. App. 230; Marks v. Deposit Bank, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 117, 50 S. W. 1103.
44a See Sec. 218.
committing a tort is joint and several;45 and, for the same reason, as in the case of parties jointly and severally liable in contract, a release of one discharges all.46 There seems also no reason of technical principle to distinguish the effect of a covenant not to sue or a release of one of several obligors under a joint and several liability in tort with a reservation of rights against the others from the effect of a similar release given to a joint and several contractor47 and many decisions, accepting the analogy, permit an action to be maintained subsequently against the othert ortfeasors, where one jointly and severally liable with them for the tort has been given a covenant not to sue him or a qualified release.48 There is, however, a practical difference between a liquidated claim on the one hand and a claim which, like many claims in tort, is not only unliquidated but without a definite standard by which it can be liquidated. No one can be allowed to recover more than one payment in full for the same claim, by any device. If A and B jointly owe
45Cooley on Torts (3d ed.), 224.
46Patridge v. Emson, Noy, 62; Cocke v. Jennor, Hob. 66; Kiffin p. Willis, 4 Mod. 380; Urton v. Price, 57 Cal. 270; Stone v. Dickinson, 7 Allen, 28; Aldrich v. Parnell, 147 Mass. 409, 18 N. E. 170; O'Neil v National CHI Co., 231 Mass. 20, 120 N. E. 107; Ar-nett v. Missouri Pac. R., 64 Mo. App. 368; Rogers v. Cox, 66 N. J. L. 432, 50 Atl. 143; Brogan v. Hanan, 55 N. Y. App. D. 92, 66 N. Y. S. 1066; Smith-wick p. Ward, 7 Jones (N. C), 64, 75 Am. Dec. 453; Brown p. Marsh, 7 Vt. 320.
47 Matheson v. O'Kane, 211 Mass. 01, 95, 97 N. E. 638, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 476.
48Matheson v. O'Kane, 211 Mass. 91,94,97 N. E. 638, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 475, citing, Texarkana Telephone Co. p. Pemberton, 86 Ark. 329, 111 S. W. 257; Chicago p. Babcock, 143 111. 358, 32 N. E. 271 ['Chicago A Alton Ry. v. Averill, 224 111. 516, 79 N. E. 664; Drinkwater p. Jordan, 46 Me. 432; Musolf p. Duluth Edison Electric
Co., 108 Minn. 369, 122 N. W. 499, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 451; Arnett p. Missouri Pacific Ry., 64 Mo. App. 368; Snow v. Chandler, 10 N. H. 92, 34 Am. Doc. 140; Line & Nelson p. Nelson A Smalley, 9 Vroom, 358; Irvine p. Milbank, 56 N. Y. 635, 15 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 378; Robertson p. Trammell, 98 Tex. 364, 83 S. W. 1098; Bloss p. Ply-male, 3 W. Va. 393, 100 Am. Dec. 752; Ellis p. Esson, 50 Wis. 138, 6 N. W. 518, 36 Am. Rep. 830. See also Carey v. Bilby, 129 Fed. 203, 63 C. C. A. 361; Berry p. Pullman Co., 249 Fed. 816, 162 C. C. A. SO; Dardanelle Ac. R. Co. p. Brigham, 98 Ark. 169, 135 S. W. 869; Parry Mfg. Co. v. Crull, 56 Ind. App. 77,101 N. E. 756; Judd p. Walker, 158 Mo. App. 156, 138 S. W. 655; Gilbert p. Finch, 173 N. Y. 455, 66 N. E. 133, 61 L. R. A. 807. 93 Am. St. Rep. 623; Smith v. Dixie Park Ac. Co., 128 Tenn. 112, 157 S. W. 900; Nashville Inter-urban Ry. p. Gregory, 137 Tenn. 422, 193 S. W. 1053; Sloan p. Herrick, 49 Vt. 327.
C $100 and A pays that sum on account of the indebtedness, a release to him with reservation of rights against B will not enable C to get a further payment from B; and the debt being for a fixed sum an attempt so to do cannot be camouflaged. Where the claim is in tort, however, deception is possible; and some courts fear that a creditor who receives a payment from one tort feasor and reserves rights against others is in fact endeavoring to get double payment for the same wrong, and therefore are disposed to disregard the reservation.49 How far such cases rest upon the sound principle that if the plaintiff in a particular case has been fully paid by any one for the wrong done him he can recover nothing from any one else, and how far they go on the unsound technical reason that a release with a reservation of rights is not the equivalent of a covenant not to sue 50 is not always easy to determine.51 Where two or more
49Ducey v. Patterson, 37 Colo. 216, 86 Pac. 109, 9 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 1066, 119 Am. St. 284, 11 Ann. Cas. 393; Gunther v. Lee, 45 Md. 60,24 Am. Rep. 504; McBride v. Scott, 132 Mich. 176, 93 N. W. 243, 61 L. R. A. 445, 102 Am. St. 416; Musolf v. Duluth Elec. Co., 108 Minn. 369,122 N. W. 499, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 451; Mitchell v. Allen, 25 Hun, 542; Delong v. Curtis, 35 Hun, 94; Ellis v. Bitzer, 2 Ohio, 89, 15 Am. Deo. 534; Seither v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 125 Pa. 397, 17 Atl. 338, 4 L. R. A. 54, 1l Am. St. 905; Abb v. Northern Pac. R., 28 Wash. 428, 68 Pac. 954, 58 L. R. A. 293, 92 Am. St. 864. See also Smith v. Dixie Park Ac. Co., 128 Tenn. 112, 157 S. W. 900.
50 See supra, Sec.338. And also the following cases of liability in tort, holding that such a qualified release is in effect ft covenant not to sue. Carey v. Bilby, 129 Fed. 203, 63 C. C. A. 361; Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Averill, 224 111. 516, 79 N. E. 654; Louisville etc. Co. v. Barnes' Adm'r, 117 Ky. 860, 79 S. W. 261, 64 L. R. A. 574, 111 Am. St. 273; Gilbert v. Finch, 173 N. Y. 455, 66 N. E. 133, 61 L. R. A. 807, 93 Am. St. 623; Walsh v. Hanan, 93
N. Y. App. D. 580, 87 N. Y. S. 930; Hirschfield v. Alsberg, 47 N. Y. Misc. 141, 93 N. Y. S. 617; Bloss v. Plymale, 3 W. Va. 393, 100 Am. Dec. 752; Ellis v. Esson, 50 Wis. 138, 6 N. W. 518, 36 Am. Rep. 830.
51 In Matheson v. O'Kane, 211 Mass. 91,95,97 N. E. 638, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 475, the court said: "The confusion and apparent conflict of authorities has not arisen in cases like that at bar, where the agreement given to one of the joint wrongdoers is clearly an agreement not to sue and nothing more. The distinction between the legal effect of a release and of a covenant not to sue is generally recognised. The controversy concerns rather the construction of a particular writing as ft release or as a covenant not to sue, and the means whereby the two are to be distinguished. Where it is apparent from the paper that the intention was to discharge the liability of one of the joint wrongdoers, the courts quite generally hold that the original joint and indivisible liability is thereby extinguished, and that any clause by which parties seek to reserve a right of action against the other wrongdoers is repugpersons are liable for the same injury though their tort was not joint the only question when a release has been given to one, should be, has the plaintiff obtained full satisfaction, or what he agreed to accept as such, for his injury; 52 but here too the difficulty of determining whether a sum received by the plaintiff was received by him as full satisfaction of a claim for undetermined damages has led some courts to lay down an absolute rule that a discharge of one of the tort feasors discharges the others though they were severally and not jointly liable.53