Among the remedies allowed to the surety, that of equitable contribution must not be overlooked. A leading case on this principle is that of Wolmer-hausen vs. Gullick,66 reported as late as 1893. In that case it is said there is on this question a remarkable absence of express authority. In that case, one of the sureties was called upon to pay the debt, and before payment she sought by bill in equity to invoke the doctrine of equitable contribution, that is to compel payment by the co-sureties, of their proportionate share of the debt, before she had paid the debt herself. The defense was that the plaintiff was not entitled to contribution, having paid nothing on account of the debt herself. The plaintiff insisted, she was willing to pay her proportion, but insisted actual payment of it was not necessary as a condition precedent to her right to contribution, on the showing that present payment of the whole debt by her would geatly embarrass her in her business investments, namely, by a withdrawal of the money necessary to pay the debt, even though the money was to be used for a short time only.

65 L. R., 2 Ch., 314.

"Obviously if a man were surety," the court says, "with nine others for ten thousand pounds, it might be a ruinous hardship if he were compelled to raise the whole 10,000 pounds at once and perhaps to pay interest on the 9,000 pounds by actions or debtor summons against his co-sureties." After a review of the authorities, showing that contribution is founded purely in equity and not in contract, the court said in substance that had the creditor been made a party to the suit, that the plaintiff would then have had a right to have had the court decree that the solvent co-surety pay his proportion to the principal creditor. The court then proceeded to declare the plaintiff's rights and made a prospective order under which the plaintiff would have the right to hold the co-surety for any sum paid over her proportionate share, and further that on the plaintiff paying her own share, that the defendant is to indemnify her against further payment or liability, and that the defendant is by payment to her, or to the creditor, to thereby exonerate the plaintiff from liability beyond the extent of her own share.

It would seem then that the right of the so-called equitable contribution is firmly established, unless the courts are to take a backward step,