delivered the following opinion of the court: —

This action arises from an implied- assumpsit; and as it respects the responsibility of the defendant, cannot be extended beyond one third of the debt and costs. On the principle of retributive justice, neither of the appellants can claim more of the appellee, than in a compound ratio of the sum paid to Weakley individually, which is the one third of the joint debt of a thousand and sixty dollars; or, in other words, according tó a common position, as the whole debt is to'one third, so would the sum paid by each appellant individually be to the sums to be paid'by them respectively. The recovery in such a case must be founded on equitable principles; and on an implied assumpsit the defendant could only be rendered accountable conformably to the foregoing rule, to each appellant, in proportion to the sums actually and respectively paid to Weakley.

This case falls expressly within the rule laid down in 1 Esp. N. P. 33 ; nor does the case stated by the appellants’ counsel as being reported in 5th East, 225, impugn this rule. Let the judgment therefore be affirmed.