joint and several debtor

Hence, I take it that they were laying down principles in relation to joint and several debtors generally.

I take this to be a decision that a release by accord and satisfaction reached with one joint and several debtor discharges all.

Secondly, the same principles apply to a contract between the creditor and one of joint and several debtors.

Mr. Harrison submits that the discharge of one joint and several debtor by accord and satisfaction discharges all the others, unless there is an intention to the contrary which may require express reservation of rights against the others.

It was argued for the defendant, on the authority of Nicholson v. Revill, 4 Ad. & E. 675, that a creditor could not release one joint and several debtor and hold another liable by reserving remedies.

Mr. Harrison relies on it for the statement in the judgment of Lord Denman C.J., at p. 683: 'The debtee's discharge of one joint and several debtor is a discharge of all.'

It is necessary, in my judgment, to look at the facts somewhat closely to see what amounts to a discharge and how far the reasoning can be applied to the case, not of joint and several debtors, but of several debtors alone, albeit all liable for the same debt.

We give our judgment merely on the principle laid down by Eyre C.J. in Cheetham v. Ward (1797) 1 Bos. & P. 630, as sanctioned by unquestionable authority, that the debtee's discharge of one joint and several debtor is a discharge of all.