Cano v. Walker, 297 Neb. 580

Cano sued Walker and Claborn on a joint-and-several promissory note and obtained summary judgment for the full amount against both defendants.
Unknown to Walker, Cano and Claborn entered a stipulation: Claborn would pay specified amounts and provide services; Cano would not execute on the judgment against Claborn while the stipulation was performed and would "forthwith release Claborn completely" upon satisfaction.
After Claborn performed the stipulation, Cano filed a Satisfaction stating Claborn had satisfied the judgment but that the judgment against Walker remained unsatisfied.
Walker later argued the release of Claborn operated to release him as a co-obligor under Nebraska common-law doctrine; the district court denied Walker’s motion to discharge but reduced the judgment by $40,000.
Walker appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether the common-law rule that a release of one joint obligor releases all applied and whether it remained good law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cano)	Defendant's Argument (Walker)	Held
Whether the stipulation and subsequent satisfaction unconditionally released Claborn	The satisfaction reserved Walker’s liability; release applied only to Claborn	The stipulation and completion produced an unconditional release of Claborn that, under common law, releases Walker	The stipulation (once performed) was an unconditional release of Claborn; that release operated to release Walker
Whether the later-filed Satisfaction’s qualifying language preserved Walker’s liability	The Satisfaction’s statement that Walker’s judgment remained unsatisfied prevented release of Walker	The operative release occurred when the stipulation was performed, making the Satisfaction’s wording irrelevant	The Satisfaction’s qualifying language did not prevent the earlier effective release; release was effective upon performance
Whether the district court could alter the judgment amount absent discharge	Cano justified reducing the judgment by amounts paid by Claborn	Walker argued full discharge required under the common-law rule	Court erred in denying discharge; reduction alone insufficient—discharge required under applicable rule
Whether Nebraska should abandon the common-law rule that release of one joint obligor releases all	Cano urged abolition of the rule	Walker urged continued application of settled Nebraska precedent	Nebraska declined to abolish the rule; stare decisis supports retaining it

Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. Ohrt, 131 Neb. 858, 270 N.W. 497 (Neb. 1936) (announcing Nebraska rule that unconditional release of one joint maker releases all)
Lamb v. Gregory, 12 Neb. 506, 11 N.W. 755 (Neb. 1882) (early application of the common-law rule releasing all co-obligors)
Huber Mfg. Co. v. Silvers, 85 Neb. 760, 124 N.W. 148 (Neb. 1910) (applied the rule where release language was unqualified)
Farmers State Bank v. Baker, 117 Neb. 29, 219 N.W. 580 (Neb. 1928) (held release of one maker operates as release of all despite intent evidence)
Coleman v. Beck, 142 Neb. 13, 5 N.W.2d 104 (Neb. 1942) (distinguished where a released party was not a joint debtor but a surety)