Cano v. Walker, 297 Neb. 580

Eric Cano obtained summary judgment (joint and several) against co-obligors Michael Walker and Billy E. Claborn on a promissory note for $387,433.20.
Before the summary judgment hearing Cano and Claborn executed a stipulation: Claborn would pay specified sums and provide services; upon satisfaction Cano agreed to "forthwith release Claborn completely" from the judgment.
Cano filed a later "Satisfaction" stating Claborn had satisfied the judgment, but that the judgment against Walker "remains unsatisfied." Cano continued collection efforts against Walker.
Walker moved to discharge the judgment, arguing Nebraska common law treats an unconditional release of one joint obligor as a release of all co-obligors.
The district court denied Walker’s motion but reduced the judgment by $40,000; Walker appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the stipulation/satisfaction releasing Claborn also release Walker under Nebraska common law?	Cano: stipulation and filed satisfaction reserved Walker’s liability; release only applied to Claborn.	Walker: the unconditional release of one joint obligor, without consent of others, releases all co-obligors.	The stipulation amounted to an unconditional release of Claborn once performed and thus, under settled Nebraska common law, released Walker as well.
Was the district court’s order overruling Walker’s discharge motion a final, appealable order?	Cano: order was beneficial (reduced judgment) and not a final appealable order.	Walker: order denied requested discharge and thus affected a substantial right.	The appellate court held the order affected a substantial right and was a final, appealable order.
Was Walker’s appeal timely?	Cano: argued untimely.	Walker: filed within 30 days of the district court’s order overruling discharge motion.	Appeal was timely.
Should the court abandon the common-law rule that releasing one co-obligor releases all?	Cano: urged abolition of the rule.	Walker: relied on existing precedent and rule.	Court declined to abolish the rule, citing stare decisis and policy reasons; any change should be legislative.

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 and several note operates as a release of all)
Lamb v. Gregory, 12 Neb. 506, 11 N.W. 755 (Neb. 1882) (early Nebraska application of the rule that releasing one joint debtor discharges all)
Huber Mfg. Co. v. Silvers, 85 Neb. 760, 124 N.W. 148 (Neb. 1910) (applied common-law rule where release was without recourse)
Coleman v. Beck, 142 Neb. 13, 5 N.W.2d 104 (Neb. 1942) (distinguishing surety from joint obligor and declining to apply the common-law rule)