Hale v. Spaulding
14 N.E. 534
Mass.
1888
Check Treatment
C. Allen, J.

The words “ in full satisfaction for his liability ” import a release and discharge to Spaulding, and, the instrument being under seal, it amounts to a technical release. The plaintiff does not controvert the general rule, that a release to one joint obligor releases all. Wiggin v. Tudor, 23 Pick. 434, 444. Goodnow v. Smith, 18 Pick. 414. Pond v. Williams, 1 Gray, 630, 636. But this result is avoided when the instrument is so drawn as to show a contrary intention. 1 Lindl. Part. 433. 2 Chit. Con. (11th Am. ed.) 1154 seq. Ex parte Good, 5 Ch. D. 46, 55. The difficulty with the plaintiff’s case is, that there is nothing in the instrument before us to show such contrary intention. Usually a reservation of rights against other parties is inserted for that purpose; or the instrument is put in the form of a covenant not to sue. See Kenworthy v. Sawyer, 125 Mass. 28; Willis v. De Castro, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 216; North v. Wakefield, 13 Q. B. 536, 541. Parol evidence to show the actual intention is incompetent. Tuckerman v. Newhall, 17 Mass. 580, 585. The instrument given in this case was a mere receipt under seal of money from one of several joint obligors, in full satisfaction for his liability on the document signed by himself and others. There is nothing to get hold of to show an intent to reserve rights against the others. He might already have discharged each of them by a similar release.

Exceptions overruled.