The correct conclusions seem to be whether the liability is in tort or contract:

1. If the creditor's rights are expressly reserved, no distinction should be taken between a covenant not to sue and a release. Such a distinction could be only technical, since in both cases the intention to reserve a right is manifested, and, moreover, the distinction is unsound technically.

Affected, in equity and good conscience, that the law will not permit him to recover again for the same damages." And these words were quoted with approval in Miller v. Beck & Co., 108 Iowa, S75, S78, 79 N, W. 344. And the Iowa court further said (at page 682), "It is entirely immaterial that the one from whom satisfaction was demanded and received was not liable for the entire damage. Indeed, if he were a stranger, and not responsible for any part of it, the rule would be the same. It is important that we distinguish in this connection between what the law denominates a 'release' and what is called a 'satisfaction.' A release may be given, although no part of the damage has been paid, and a technical release to one who is not a joint wrongdoer will not necessarily release another, who may have had some connection with the wrong." See further generally as to payment or accord and sat-isfaction by a stranger, infra, {Sec. 1857-1860.

55a Supra, Sec. 334.

56Wagner v. Union, etc, Co., 41 111. App. 408; Western Tube Co. v. Zang, 86 111. App. 63; Kentucky, etc, Bridge Co. v. Hall, 125 Ind. 220, 25 N. E. 219; Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. McWherter, 69 Kane. 345,53 Pac. 136; Thomas v. Central R. Co., 194 Pa. St. 511, 45 Atl. 344; McClure v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 53 Pa. Super. 638. In Pi-sano v. B. M. & J. P. Shanley Co., 66 N. J. L. 1, 6, 48 Atl. 618, the court said: "Whatever effect satisfaction for the injury complained of, made by a third party, may have upon a suit of this character, a simple release to a stranger would not be a bar." See also Wardell v. McCounell, 26 Neb. 558, 41 N. W. 548; Iddings v. Citizens' State Bank, 3 Neb. Unoff. 760, 92 N. W. 578; Mathews v. Lawrence, 1 Denio, 212, 43 Am. Deo. 666; Atlantic Dock Co. v. Mayor, 63 N. Y. 64; Sie-ber v. Amunson, 78 Wis. 679, 47 N. W. 1126.

2. If it appears that the sum received as consideration for a covenant or release was paid as full redress, or was so large that any verdict for more would be excessive, no further action should be allowed whatever the form of instrument relied on as a discharge.

3. Unless such facts affirmatively appear the remaining obligors are still liable in spite of a covenant not to sue or release with reservation of rights given to one jointly liable with them.

4. If a sealed or written release is given which contains no reservation of rights, an intent to reserve them cannot be shown by parol except in a suit for reformation.

5. If no formal release is given parol evidence is admissible to show whether a payment was given and received as full satisfaction of the entire claim or not.