Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-01-26

Judgment. He can claim or enfore but one
satisfaction for the same tTespass. He
must elect which Of the several judgments
he viii proceed 10 execution for the salts
faction Of his damages at is a we'll
settled principle Of this court where two
tort fe1sas are sued in n Joint trespass a
satisfaction Of judgment against one is a
bar 10 IN action against the others" 1t
follows, therefore, as a legal deduction, a
satisfaction Of the damages by one Of the
wrong-doers is a bar 10 The further recovery
for the same trespasa. in Parsons on con-
tracts, 30 it is stated The effect OF a
release Of damages 10 one Of two wrong
doers Is the same az 4 release Of the debt I;
il is, in his opinion, release Of the whole
claim arising out ofthe tort, and discharges
all Of The parties" and in support Of this
principle he cites 7th Hum, $40. In lst
ireenieaf on evidence, paragraph 80 the
author states, as 10 the parties 10 anacc0fd
proof Of an accord and satisfaction made
by one of several joint obligees or Joint
trespassers il good and valuable as 70 all"
In support of this he cites Eth Cowan. 224,
in which it is held " if several tort fsazas
are jointly sued, anda sum Of money is
accepted from one Of them, and the action
il dropped this may be shown as full
satisfaction in bar Of subsequent action
against the others"
This principle seems to be veil settled III
the English courts 9th Bacon's ahridge-
meni, 522, aif there have been three par
ties 70 a trespass, and one Of them have
made a satisfaction, the other two may
plead this in bar Of the action for the TRES
I..r.I- J..
against fine, IL the plaintiff accepts notes
from two for a sum 10 be paid at a future
day in satisfaction as 70 them, bat not to
operate "a a satisfaction as to The other de-
PENDANTS, il is good as 10 all And in the
American notes Of the work in support of
this principle, % Ohio, 81, and I'd Green
leaf, l02, are referred to. In Petersdorrs
abridgment Of the common law, 18th vol
ume, 81, the principle is stated of a
trespass be Joint, release to one is q bartO
all, for though a trespass be committed by
several, il may be either against one or
against all, for in irespass all are principals,
and each is ansWerable 10 his co-trespassers,
and there can be but one satisfaction a re-
lease is a release Of the trespass, and all
have an equal benefit
The same principle was settled in Sd
Taunton, III In that case the plaintiff
had sued out writs for trespass against
Bond NJ. and the defendant, and upon
which he discontinued upon receiving a
certain sum in satisfaction, and subsequently
brought his action against the defendant for
the same sum. 1t was held, "the discharge
made to one tort Jeasas woul6 operate as a
release TO all, for If il were otherwise the
plaintiff might get paid by each defendant
to the whole amount of the injury sus-
tained.' lst Petersdorf's abridgment of
common law, IS. The same principle is
stated in Gritty on contracts, 765: "accord
and satisfaction by one defendant is in gen
eral a bar TO all, wherein trespass quart
clausem Jregd, the defendants pleaded they
acted as servants to B., who was no party
10 the suit, that they delivered mp the pos
session of the close to him, and that he
afterwards, with the consent Of the
defendants, made satisfaction to the plain
tiff which was accepted, il was held wheth-
er satisfaction or not could be pleaded. ii
appeared from the proof in the case 3. was
a co-trespasseF, 30 as 10 be able 10 make a
satisfaction that would innure to all the
defendants" Upon a review of the all.
thorities on this question we find the prin-
ciple we'll settled, in a joint trespass if one
of the fparty defendants make settlement
with the plaintiff and pays him the amount
they may agree upon for the damages sus-
tanned by the plaintiff though he may and
does pay the plaintiff alone for the damages
inflicted by him, twill operate to discharge
the other defendants, and they may plead
il in bar as an accord and satisfaction of
the trespass. We are satisfied upon re-
view of the authorities, this principle is
the correct rule Of law; otherwise a plain
tiff in many instances would operate upon
the fears Of defendants, and get from each
the full amount Of the trespass committed.
satisfaction of damages from one, the
action being joint, must operate as a dis
charge to all, whether the parties desig-
mated il or not
The court erred 10 refusing to give the
instructions asked for by the counsel of
the plaintiffs in error. II the facts stated
be true, twas a discharge of the plaintiffs,
and the court should have instructed the
jury. Under the rules Of law, they were
entitled to the instruction asked. The
charge Of his Honor is vague unsatisfaCto-
ry, and did not place the questions at issue
fairly before the jury, and did not embrace
the propositions asked for by the counsel of
the plaintiffs in error. Other questions
have been discussed in the argument, but as
a settlement of this question is decisive Of
the case before the court, we deem il unne-
cessary to give any decision upon them.
The Judgment of the Circuit Court will
be reversed-a new trial awarded, in which
the law will be charged a. settled in this
opinion.
SHACKLEFORD, Judge
A true copy Test:
NJ l. PArrEPenN Clerk