Carey v. Bilby, 129 F. 203

Carey v. Bilby

129 F. 203 | 8th Cir. | 1904

THAYER, Circuit Judge,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

At the conclusion of the evidence on the trial below, counsel for the defendant requested a peremptory instruction to find a verdict in favor of his client. This instruction was asked, as it seems, on the sole ground that the release which had been executed by the plaintiff Bilby in favor of T. J. Hysham and C. J. Hysham operated as a release of the defendant, Carey, although it was not so intended, and that no action could be maintained against him in consequence of the execution of this instrument. The trial court denied the request, holding that the release in question did not have the effect claimed for it. It is conceded by counsel for the plaintiff in error that the only question for determination by this court is whether the trial judge was right in his view that the release did not operate as a discharge of the cause of action against Carey.

It is an old and well-established rule of law that the release of a cause of action as against one of two or more joint tort feasors or joint obligors operates as a release of all. This is upon the theory that when one has received full compensation for a wrong, no matter from which wrongdoer or from what source, the law will not permit him to recover further damages. Lovejoy v. Murray, 3 Wall. 1, 17, 18 L. Ed. 129. When a release of a cause of action for a tort is given by the injured party to one of two or more persons who committed the wrong, the release is construed most strongly against the party executing it. The law indulges in the presumption that the release was given in full satisfaction for the injury, and upon a sufficient consideration, and will not permit the presumption to be overcome by oral proof to the contrary. Ellis v. Esson, 50 Wis. 138, 6 N. W. 518, *206520, 36 Am. Rep. 830; Bronson v. Fitzhugh, 1 Hill, 185, 186. Sometimes, however, as in the case in hand, a release executed in favor of one wrongdoer is accompanied with the reservation of the right to sue others who were jointly concerned in the wrong, and in such cases the question has frequently arisen, how shall such an instrument be interpreted? Shall the reservation of the right to sue others be ignored, and the instrument treated as raising a conclusive presumption that full compensation for the wrong has been made, as though it were a technical release under seal, or shall the reservation of the right to sue others be taken to mean that full compensation has not been received by the injured party, and that he merely intended to agree with the released party not to pursue him further, but without releasing his cause of action against the other wrongdoers, or admitting that he has received full compensation for the injury? With reference to this question the authorities are not in accord. Some courts are disposed to hold, and have held, that when such an instrument contains apt words releasing one of the joint wrongdoers, it operates to release all, and that any clause inserted therein reserving a right to sue others after one has been released is repugnant to the release, in that it defeats or attempts to defeat, the natural legal effect of the instrument; and that it should therefore be ignored. McBride v. Scott et al. (Mich.) 93 N. W. 243, 61 L. R. A. 445; Abb v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. (Wash.) 68 Pac. 954, 58 L. R. A. 293, and cases there cited. Other courts hold, however, that such an instrument should be given effect according to the obvious intent of the person executing it, and that it should not be treated as a technical release operating to destroy his cause of action as against all of the joint tort feasors, but rather as a covenant not to sue the party in whose favor the instrument runs. Gilbert v. Finch (N. Y.) 66 N. E. 133, 61 L. R. A. 807; Matthews v. Chicopee Mfg. Co., 3 Rob. 712; Ellis v. Esson, 50 Wis. 138, 6 N. W. 518, 36 Am. Rep. 830; Hood v. Hayward, 124 N. Y. 1, 16, 26 N. E. 331; Sloan v. Herrick, 49 Vt. 327; McCrillis v. Hawes, 38 Me. 566; Miller v. Beck (Iowa) 79 N. W. 344, 345; Price v. Barker, 4 El. & Bl. 760, 776, 777.

We are of opinion that the doctrine enunciated in the cases last cited is supported by the greater weight of authority, and is founded upon the better reasons. It has the merit of giving effect to the intention of the party who executes such an instrument, which should always be done when the intention is manifest and it can be given effect without violating any rule of law, morals, or public policy. Besides, we are not aware of any sufficient reason which should preclude a person who has sustained an injury through the wrongful act of several persons from agreeing with one of the wrongdoers, who desires to avoid litigation, to accept such sum by way of partial compensation for the injury as he may be willing to pay, and to discharge him from further liability without releasing his cause of action as against the other wrongdoers. The law favors compromises generally, and it is not perceived that an arrangement of the kind last mentioned should be regarded with disfavor. The release which was read in evidence in the case at bar plainly shows that the sum paid by Hysham was not accepted by the plaintiffs as full compensation for the injury which *207they had sustained; that it was not in fact full compensation for the injury; and that they had no intention of releasing their cause of action as against Carey. Why, then, should it be given an effect contrary to the intent of the one who executed it? We perceive no adequate reason for giving it such effect, and accordingly agree with the lower court that it did not release Carey.

The judgments below are therefore affirmed.