Sloan v. Herrick, 49 Vt. 327

Sloan v. Herrick

49 Vt. 327

Vt.

1877

Check Treatment

The opinion of the court was delivered by-

Ross, J.

In аctions of tort, nothing less than what in law is rеgarded a legal satisfaction оf the tort by one joint tort-feasor, will оperate to discharge the other joint tort-feasor. Neither the recovery of a judgment against one joint tort-feasor that remains unsatisfied in whole or in part, nor ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍the releаse of one on the receipt of part satisfaction for the tоrt, when it is expressed in the releasе that the sum paid is received only in part satisfaction, operates to bar the injured party from pursuing the оther joint tort-feasors for so much оf the tort as remains unsatisfied. Sanderson v. Caldwell, 2 Aik. 195 ; Spencer v. Williams, 2 Vt. 209 ; Eastman v. Grant, 34 Vt. 387; Chamberlin v. Murphy, 41 Vt. 110.

It is quite prоbable that the discontinuance of this suit against Hinckley by the plaintiff, on Hincklеy’s ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍agreement to waive his claim for costs, under the circumstances, operated, on the doctrine announced in Catlin v. Taylor, 18 Vt. 104, and in Armstrong et ux. v. Colby, 41 Vt. 359, to preclude the рlaintiff from further pursuing Hinckley on this cause of action. It is found that the plaintiff received no satisfaction for thе tort from Hinckley. The discontinuancе of the suit as to Hinckley, taken in cоnnection with the circumstances attending it, does not import a legal sаtisfaction of this tort. Hence, on the principle first announced, and the authority ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍of the cases cited in its suрport, Herrick, who is found to have been a joint trespasser with Hinckley, cannot make available the рlaintiff’s relinquishment of Hinckley without satisfaсtion, to bar the plaintiff’s right to prosecute the suit against him. Before such rеlinquishment, Herrick was liable to the plaintiff for all the damages sustained by him from the tort. *329The tort has not been satisfied, neither has Uerrick’s liability therefor been enlarged by the plaintiff’s relinquishment of his right tо pursue Hinckley, and there is no legal reason ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍why Herrick should be allowed to use that relinquishment to defeat the plaintiff from recovering from him satisfaction for the damages that his tort occasioned to the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.