and authority to defend any suit at law or in equity, which may
be instituted against the heirs or representatives of Odel Wheel-
er on account of said single bill, but this stipulation is not in-
consistent with, but is entirely compatible with the complete
substitution of himself as the party liable, in the place of his co-
obligor, Odel,

As I understand this agreement, Thomas T. Wheeler by it
assumed upon himself, for a valuable consideration, moving from
the representatives of Odel to him, the payment of Odel's one-
third of the single bill in question, which made him responsible
for two-thirds. The stipulation, that he shall have power to
defend the proceedings at law or in equity which may be insti-
tuted against the representatives of Odel Wheeler, does not
appear to me to militate against this view of the obligation im-
posed upon him by contract. Having by his agreement with
the representatives of Odel, undertaken to pay his, Odel's, part
of the single bill, nothing was more natural or proper than that
he should be authorized to defend any action which might be
brought against those representatives on account thereof; and
being so authorized, it is quite likely a failure on their part to
give him notice of such action, might be fatal to their right to
recover from him upon the contract, in the event of their being
compelled to pay any thing on the single bill.

But as the case presents itself to my mind, the question here
is not, whether the representatives of Odel Wheeler could re-
cover from Thomas T. Wheeler, if they were made to pay any
part of the joint debt, without having given him an opportunity
to defend the action; but whether as between Thomas T.
Wheeler and Thomas Hilleary, the former by receiving from
Odel Wheeler a full and valuable consideration for that portion
of the debt, which he, Odel, was bound to pay, Thomas T.
Wheeler is not, with respect to Hilleary, substituted for Odel,
and responsible for his one-third of the joint debt due upon the
single bill. There can be no doubt, that originally each of
these three joint obligors, though jointly and severally liable to
Wilson, the creditor, for the whole debt, were, as among them-
selves, each bound to contribute one-third, because each must