Cano v. Walker, 901 N.W.2d 251

Cano sued Walker and Claborn on a jointly and severally liable promissory note and obtained summary judgment for the full amount ($387,433.20).
Unbeknownst to Walker at the summary-judgment hearing, Cano and Claborn had executed a stipulation in which Claborn agreed to pay specified amounts and, upon satisfaction, Cano would "forthwith release Claborn completely" from the judgment.
Cano later filed a Satisfaction stating Claborn had satisfied the judgment, while also noting the judgment against Walker "remains unsatisfied."
Walker argued the release of Claborn operated to release him as a co-obligor under Nebraska’s common-law rule that releasing one joint obligor releases all.
The district court denied Walker’s motion to discharge but reduced the judgment by $40,000; Walker appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cano)	Defendant's Argument (Walker)	Held
Whether the stipulation/satisfaction released Claborn unconditionally	Stipulation and later satisfaction did not release Walker because the satisfaction expressly reserved Walker’s liability	Stipulation operated as an unconditional release of Claborn once performed, releasing Walker under the common-law rule	The stipulation, once performed, unconditionally released Claborn and thus released Walker; discharge granted
Whether the district court’s post-judgment order denying discharge was a final, appealable order	Denial plus $40,000 reduction benefited Walker and did not affect a substantial right	Denial of full discharge affected a substantial right and is appealable	The denial affected a substantial right and was a final, appealable order
Whether the common-law rule (release of one joint obligor releases all) remains good law	Court should abolish the rule as antiquated	Rule remains settled Nebraska law and should be retained unless Legislature acts	Court reaffirmed and applied the common-law rule
Whether the satisfaction filed later (which reserved Walker’s liability) prevents operation of the earlier stipulation	The satisfaction’s reservation controls and prevents release of Walker	The operative release occurred in the stipulation when its terms were performed; the later satisfaction’s language was irrelevant	The stipulation controlled; the later qualifying language did not prevent the release’s effect

Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. Ohrt, 131 Neb. 858, 270 N.W. 497 (Neb. 1936) (recognizing that an unconditional release of one maker of a joint note releases all)
Coleman v. Beck, 142 Neb. 13, 5 N.W.2d 104 (Neb. 1942) (distinguishing surety from joint debtor regarding release)
Lamb v. Gregory, 12 Neb. 506, 11 N.W. 755 (Neb. 1882) (early application of the common-law rule that release of one joint obligor releases all)
Huber Mfg. Co. v. Silvers, 85 Neb. 760, 124 N.W. 148 (Neb. 1910) (applying the common-law rule despite reservations)
Farmers State Bank v. Baker, 117 Neb. 29, 219 N.W. 580 (Neb. 1928) (holding release of one maker without others’ consent operates to release all)
Schiffer v. United Grocers, Inc., 329 Or. 86, 989 P.2d 10 (Or. 1999) (noting jurisdictions differ on abolishing the common-law rule)