Opinion of the Court by

If, as is insisted for the appellant, the illegality of the original transaction in which the note to Wyatt was given, might have constituted a bar to the action on the note, or even have been sufficient to prevent a recovery by one of the obligor’s for contribution, if he had paid the note, yet when the appellant and Stephens had permitted a judgment to be rendered on the note by Wyatt’s assignee and taken on themselves a new obligation by replevying the judgment, they were both legally bound to pay *76the debt and liable for .contribution as between themselves (Minus v. Johnson, etc., 1 Duvall, 171).

The instruction which the court gave the jury, being in conformity with this view, seems to us to have presented the law of the case.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.