Cano v. Walker, 297 Neb. 580

Eric Cano sued Michael Walker and Billy E. Claborn, Jr. on a joint-and-several promissory note and obtained summary judgment for $387,433.20 against both.
Cano and Claborn entered a stipulation (without Walker’s knowledge) where Claborn agreed to pay specified amounts and provide goods; upon performance Cano agreed to "forthwith release Claborn completely" from the judgment.
Cano filed a "Satisfaction" stating Claborn had satisfied the judgment, while asserting Walker’s judgment remained unsatisfied; Cano nevertheless continued collection efforts against Walker.
Walker later moved to discharge the judgment against him, arguing Nebraska’s common-law rule releases all co-makers when one joint obligor is unconditionally released.
The district court denied discharge but reduced the judgment by $40,000; Walker appealed. The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed applicability and continued viability of the common-law release rule.

Issue	Cano (Plaintiff) Argument	Walker (Defendant) Argument	Held
Whether the district court’s denial of Walker’s motion to discharge was a final, appealable order	Denial was not final in a way that impedes appealability or was beneficial due to $40,000 reduction	Denial affected a substantial right (requested full discharge) and was appealable	Order was final and appeal timely filed; appealable under § 25-1902
Whether appeal was timely	Walker’s notice was untimely	Walker filed within 30 days of the order overruling discharge	Appeal was timely under § 25-1912
Whether the stipulation/satisfaction unconditionally and voluntarily released Claborn and thereby released Walker under common-law rule	The satisfaction reserved Walker’s liability; release language was qualified and thus did not release Walker	The stipulation promised a complete release upon performance; once performed it was an unconditional voluntary release of Claborn, which releases all co-makers	Stipulation created an unconditional release upon performance; release of Claborn operated to release Walker under Nebraska common law
Whether Nebraska should abandon the common-law rule that release of one joint obligor releases all	Argues the rule should be abolished as outdated	Defends rule as settled precedent promoting predictability; changes belong to the Legislature	Court declines to abolish rule; applies stare decisis and maintains the rule

Lamb v. Gregory, 12 Neb. 506 (1882) (early Nebraska application of rule that release of one joint obligor releases all)
Huber Mfg. Co. v. Silvers, 85 Neb. 760 (1910) (applied common-law rule where release language was unqualified)
Farmers State Bank v. Baker, 117 Neb. 29 (1928) (held release of one maker of a joint and several note operated as release of all)
Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. Ohrt, 131 Neb. 858 (1936) (recognized that waiver or qualified statements may not constitute unconditional release)
Coleman v. Beck, 142 Neb. 13 (1942) (distinguished surety/assumption from joint obligor releases)