Court Opinion

ID: 9626334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:08:58.597572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:14.654234
License: Public Domain

LUSK, J.
The ease is before the court on motion of respondent, William H. Anders, to dismiss the appeal.
The action was for personal injuries. The appellant, Everett Hicklin, on April 2, 1952, recovered judgment for $15,000.00 against the respondents, Anders and Elbert G-. Mulkey, administrator of the Estate of James Joseph Bannister, deceased, hereinafter called the ad*131ministrator. (Cleo Bannister was later appointed administratrix in the place of Mulkey.) On motion the court set aside the verdict against Anders and entered judgment in his favor notwithstanding the verdict. From that judgment Hicklin appealed, and the administrator likewise appealed from the judgment against him. Hicklin commenced garnishment proceedings against Anders, the administrator, and Pacific Indemnity Company, the administrator’s insurance carrier, and recovered a judgment against the garnishee for $5,084.77. Pacific Indemnity Company took an appeal from that judgment. While these various appeals were pending Hicklin and his attorney, under date of January 12,1958, executed an instrument designated “Covenant” by which they covenanted and agreed, in consideration of $4,750.00, not to proceed further against Pacific Indemnity Company or the administrator on account of Hicklin’s injuries
“or on account of said judgment for damages or on account of said judgment in said garnishment proceeding, and that said Everett Hicklin will not issue or cause to be issued or served further execution against either said Pacific Indemnity Company or said estate of James Joseph Bannister, deceased, or anyone on their behalf on account of said matters, and will not otherwise sue said Pacific Indemnity Company or said Cleo Bannister as said administratrix or individually, or said Elbert Gf. Mulkey as such administrator, for or on account of said injuries or anything arising out of the same or on account of said judgments or either of them.”
The instrument further provided:
“It is specifically understood and agreed, however, that this covenant, in no way restrains, restricts or prohibits said Everett Hicklin or anyone on his behalf from continuing said appeal as against said William H. Anders and proceeding with said *132action against said William H. Anders, it being expressly understood that it is the intention of said Everett Hicldin to continue with said appeal against said William H. Anders to a final conclusion and to continue with said action against said William H. Anders, both in said Supreme Court and said Circuit Court, and if possible to recover the balance of said judgment as against said William H. Anders and this covenant is not to be construed or treated as a release or accord and satisfaction of any claim or demand which said Everett Iiicklin has or claims to have against said William H. Anders.”
Contemporaneously, the garnishment proceedings and the administrator’s appeal to this court were dismissed on stipulation of the parties, and Hicklin, by his attorney, executed a satisfaction of the judgment against Pacific Indemnity Company, garnishee, in the sum of $5,084.77. The instrument of satisfaction further provides that Hicklin
“does not satisfy the judgment made and entered herein on or about the 3rd day of April, 1952 in favor of plaintiff and against the above named William H. Anders and Elbert G-. Mulkey as such administrator in the amount of $15,000.00 together with certain costs and disbursements, but said Everett Hicklin by his said attorney, does hereby acknowledge receipt upon said $15,000.00 judgment so made and entered on or about April 3, 1952, of the sum of $4,750.00 in partial satisfaction only of said judgment for $15,000.00 together with costs and disbursements.”
To support his motion Anders relies on the rule that the release of one or two or more joint tortfeasors releases all. Stires v. Sherwood, 75 Or 108, 145 P. 645. He concedes that in this state, as in most other jurisdictions, this rule has no application to a covenant not to sue. McKay v. Pacific Bldg. Materials Co., 156 *133Or 578, 68 P2d 127; Murray v. Helfrich, 146 Or 602, 30 P2d 1053; Keadle v. Padden, 143 Or 350, 362, 366, 20 P2d 403, 22 P2d 892. But lie argues that in this ease the suit is an accomplished fact and therefore an agreement not to sue is meaningless; and that the “Covenant” is in fact an accord and satisfaction which operates as a discharge of the judgment and of both joint tort-feasors, citing 1 Am Jur 257, Accord and Satisfaction §§ 8, 73; Clay v. Hoysradt, 8 Kan 74; Cooper v. Sagert, 111 Or 27, 223 P 943; Restatement, Torts § 886.
It is sufficient to say of the decisions cited that they are not in point. As to the claim that what the parties did amounted to an accord and satisfaction, precisely the same argument was made in McKay v. Pacific Bldg. Materials Co., supra, with respect to the covenant not to sue involved in that case, and was rejected. The only difference between the two cases is that in the one the agreement was made before judgment and in the other after judgment. In the McKay case payment was made in settlement in order to get rid of an unliquidated claim, and in this case in order to get rid of the consequences of a judgment from which an appeal had been taken and was pending. In both the intention is made clearly to appear that the money was not accepted in satisfaction of the entire claim and that the settlement made with one defendant should not affect the injured party’s rights against the other. According to 45 Am Jur 702, Release § 37, “There appears to have been an increasing tendency in the later cases to give effect to the actual intention of the parties so far as possible.” The numerous cases digested in 124 ALR 1306 and 104 ALR 852 support that statement. See, also, 66 ALR 209 and 50 ALR 1072. Many of the earlier cases are cited in Stires v. Sherwood, supra at p. 113. No reason has been suggested, nor does any occur to us, which *134warrants the assertion that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the acts of Hicklin and his expressed intention to preserve his rights against Anders.
Onr research has discovered bnt two cases involving similar facts. These are Pertroyeanis v. Pirola, 205 Ill App 310, and Pennington v. Bevering, (Tex) 17 SW2d 772. In the former case the court held that acceptance by the plaintiff of payment of a part of a judgment from one of the joint tort-feasors operated to discharge the other, notwithstanding the expressed intention of the parties that this should not be its' effeet. There is no opinion in the case, but simply an “Abstract of the Decision”, which states the court’s conclusions. The opposite result was reached by the Texas court in Pennington v. Bevering, which held that the instrument of release evidenced the intention of the parties that the creditor reserved the right to proceed for the balance against the nonsettling judgment debtor and that this intention should be given effect. In our opinion the Texas court’s decision is sound and accords with modern judicial thinking relative to settlements of this kind. At least it can be said for this view of the matter that it “offers a way for a party to buy his peace and allows an opportunity to compromise a doubtful claim without requiring an injured party to forego the right of full compensation against known wrongdoers.” Cook v. City Transport Corp., 272 Mich 91, 261 NW 257.
In Black v. Martin, 88 Mont 256, 292 P 577, the court reviewed extensively the judicial decisions and the observations of eminent text writers, showing the disfavor into which has fallen the rule that a release to one of several joint tort-feasors is a discharge to all, and the efforts of the courts to avoid application of that rule whenever possible. Dean Wigmore, according *135to the Montana court, called the rule a “surviving relic of the Cokian period of metaphysics.” The case before the court did not involve an agreement not to sue but a release to one, with a reservation of rights against another joint tort-feasor. Holding that effect should be given to the intention of the parties, the court said:
“As each tort-feasor is liable for the entire damage, if one sees fit to secure acquittance for himself by compromise with the injured person, he does no wrong to those who are jointly liable with him. How can they complain if he has paid part of the damage? They are not prejudiced by the settlement, but on the contrary are benefited, for each is entitled to have the amount of any judgment rendered against him reduced by the amount paid by his cotort-feasor. * * *
‘ ‘ The law favors compromises. This is especially true in tort actions, not only because they relieve the labors of courts, and avoid expense, but also because, where the parties agree between themselves upon a settlement of the claim, the result reached is frequently a more equitable adjustment than is possible to be had in a court of law. (10 Virginia Law Review, 72.) ”
Dissatisfaction with the “finespun” and “over-technical” law of joint tort-feasors (Cook v. City Transport Co., supra) has led to the enactment of statutes, some of which substantially abolish the rule that a release to one of several joint tort-feasors discharges all, while others provide that releases must be given effect according to the intention of the parties. 45 Am Jur 702, Release § 37. No statute is needed, however, to enable a court to adopt the latter rule, and we, therefore, hold that, since Hicklin’s intention in executing the covenant and in partially releasing the judgment was not to release Anders, Hicldin’s right to proceed with the appeal against Anders has not been affected, *136and the motion to dismiss must, therefore, be denied. It need only be added that the payment of $4,750.00 to Hicklin extinguishes pro tanto the amount of damages, if any, which may be ultimately found recoverable by Hicklin from Anders. Murray v. Helfrich, supra; Stires v. Sherwood, supra at p. 113.
Ray G. Broion, of Portland, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant.
Bay Mise argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Meindl & Mize and R. E. Kriesien, of Portland.