Sec 763

Where one party pays money for another through his own negligence, he cannot recover from the party on whose behalf it is paid.4 Hence, as we have just seen, a party who negligently leaves his goods in another's house, where they are distrained, cannot recover from the owner of the house the amount paid to release the goods.6 The law under such circumstances will not imply the request.6 And where W. negligently delivers to A. goods meant for B., W., having paid the value of the goods to B., cannot recover the amount of the payment from A. without proving conversion by A.7 Where, also, the plaintiff, one of two joint prize agents, was, in part through his own want of caution, imposed upon by a person who falsely pretended to be a seaman entitled to prize-money, and was afterwards compelled to pay the amount to the real claimant, it was held that the plaintiff could not recover a moiety of the payment from his associate agent.8 A banker, also, cannot recover from a party whose cheque has been fraudulently altered the amount paid out by the banker on such cheque.1

No recovery when the party paying does so negligently or officiously.

1 Supra, sec 758.

2 England V. Marsden, L. R. 1 C. P. 529.

3 Bates V. Founley, 2 Exch. 152.

4 Supra, sec 756; Griffinhoofe V. Dan-buz, 5 E. & B. 746; England V. Marsden, L. R. 1 C. P. 529; Sleigh V. Sleigh, 3 Exch. 514; see also Hunter V. Hunt, 1 C. B. 300; Willis V. Hob-son, 37 Me. 403; Rumney V. Ellsworth, 4 N. H. 138; Fisher V. Kinaston, 18 Vt. 489; Gleason V. Dyke, 22 Pick.

393; Doty V. Wilson, 14 Johns. 378; Rensselaer Glass Fact. V. Reid, 5 Cow. 603; Taylor V. Baldwin, 10 Barb. 626; Mayor, etc., V. Hughes, 1 Gill & J. 497; Taylor V. Cotten, 6 Ired. 69; Lewis V. Lewis, 3 Strobh. 530.

5 Supra, sec 762.

6 Wing V. Mill, 1 B. & Ald. 104.

7 Sills V. Laing, 4 Camp. 81.

8 Mcllreath V. Margetson, 4 Dougl. 278; cited as MacKreath V. Margetson, 2 Ch. on Con. 11th Am. ed. 887.

Sec 764

The owner of a ship who is compelled to pay the crew's maritime lien for wages may recover the amount so paid from the person under whose employment of ship and crew the debt was incurred.2 And where the master of a ship has bound the ship and cargo for necessary repairs by bottomry bonds, the owner of goods, who has been compelled in part to pay such bonds in order to release his goods, may recover the amount so paid from the ship owner.3 But when a ship is owned in equal shares by two persons, A. and B., and A., without B.'s knowledge, repairs the vessel in a home port, the money advanced for this purpose cannot be recovered by A. from B.4

Sec 765

As has already been incidentally noticed, when several parties are co-debtors of a common debt, and one of them is compelled to pay the whole debt, he may recover contribution from the others; and since in this case we cannot resort to the hypothesis of implied promise so far as concerns the claim of a debtor upon a co-debtor with whom he was in no privity, we must fall back on the rule now immediately before us, holding that because the debtor who pays does so as his co-debtor's representative, he is entitled to recover contribution from his co-debtor. The same reason explains the rulings that a surety who pays more than his share is entitled to recover contribution from his co-surety.5 Hence, where one of two joint accommodation payees and indorsers pays the whole of the note, he may recover contribution from the other.1 To establish the relationship of co-debtors or co-sureties, no concert or unity as to time or amount is necessary; nor need the fact of the joint obligation be reciprocally known.2 But there must be co-liability; and hence, a debtor whose liability is extinguished by the statute of limitation, cannot be compelled to contribute.3 - A second indorser on a promissory note is not liable to the first, though both are accommodation indorsers, unless it be proved that they have agreed to be liable as cosureties.4 Nor is a surety liable to contribute to reimburse a party who, though technically a fellow-surety, is really the principal debtor.5 Nor can a special supplementary guarantor be made to contribute to reimburse a co-surety in a matter to which the obligation of the guarantor does not reach;6 nor is an accommodation guarantor bound to contribute to reimburse a co-guarantor for whose accommodation alone he signed the contract of guaranty.7 Whether there is this joint liability is often a matter of extrinsic proof, the understanding of the parties being in this way established;8 though evidence will not be received to establish an obligation in conflict with the terms of a written contract.9 - An inde-

Party paying maritime lien for another may claim reimbursement.

Co-debtors and cosureties paying claim entitled to contribution.

1 Hall V. Fuller, 5 B. & C. 750; see Robarts V. Tucker, 16 Q. B. 560.

2 Leake, 2d ed. 88; Johnson V. Steam Packet Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 38.

3 Duncan V. Benson, 3 Ex. 644; see Lloyd V. Guibert, L. R. 1 Q. B. 115.

4 Benson V. Thompson, 27 Me. 471.

5 Infra, sec 835; Leake, 2d ed. 80; Theobald, Prin. and Sur. ch. 11; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. 12th ed. sec 499; Har-bert's case, 3 Coke, 11 b; Dering V. Winchilsea, 1 Cox, 31 ; 1 Wh. & Tu.

L. C. 4th Am. ed. 120; Edger V. Knapp.

5 M. & G. 758; Kemp V. Finden, 12 M.

& W. 423; Ellis V. Emmanuel, L. R. 1 Ex. D. 157; Steel V. Dixon, L. R. 17 Ch. D. 825; Powers V. Nash, 37 Me. 322; Boardman V. Paige, 11 N. H. 431; Miller V. Sawyer, 30 Vt. 417; Chaffee V. Jones, 19 Pick. 264; Campbell V. Mesier, 4 John. Ch. 334; Parker V. Ellis, 2 Sandf. 223; Coburn V. Whee-lock, 34 N. Y. 440; Bobbitt V. Shryer, 70 Ind. 513; Hall V. Robinson, 8 Ired.

56. See Batchelder V. Fiske, 17 Mass. 464; Himes V. Keller, 3 W. & S. 401; see also Brandt on Suretyship, sec 220 et seq.

1 Steckel V. Steckel, 28 Penn. St. 235.

2 Dering V. Winchilsea, 1 Cox, 318; Whiting V. Burke, L. R. 10 Eq. 539; Chaffee V. Jones, 19 Pick. 260. See Sibley V. McAllaster, 8 N. H. 389; Norton V. Coons, 3 Denio, 130; Ponder V. Carter, 12 Ired. L. 242; McKenna V. George, 2 Rich. Eq. 15; Van Petten V. Richardson, 68 Mo. 379.