## Facts

- Starkey sued Merryweather and Nixan jointly for harm to a reversionary interest in a mill and for trover involving certain machinery.
- Starkey obtained a joint judgment against both defendants for about £840.
- The full amount of the judgment was levied and collected from Merryweather alone.
- After paying the entire judgment, Merryweather sued Nixan seeking contribution for one-half of the amount paid.
- The trial court rejected the contribution claim on the ground that contribution is not available between joint tortfeasors.
- Merryweather sought appellate review in the Court of King’s Bench.

## Issues

1. Whether, at common law, a defendant liable as an intentional joint tortfeasor who pays the full amount of a joint judgment may recover contribution from a fellow joint tortfeasor.
2. Whether courts will recognize an implied obligation of reimbursement between parties who participated together in a wrongful act giving rise to tort liability.

## Decision

- The Court of King’s Bench affirmed judgment for Nixan.
- The court held that Merryweather had no right to contribution after paying the joint judgment.
- The case became identified with the proposition that contribution is not allowed between joint tortfeasors, particularly where the parties are treated as equally blameworthy participants in the wrong.

## Legal Principles

- At common law, a tortfeasor who satisfies more than his share of a joint judgment cannot obtain contribution from a fellow tortfeasor when the liability arises from a joint wrongful act treated as intentional or morally culpable.
- Courts will not grant relief that requires them to adjust burdens between parties regarded as in pari delicto (equally at fault) for the same tort.
- A contribution claim framed as an implied promise of reimbursement fails where the implied undertaking would be connected to, or founded upon, unlawful or wrongful conduct and is therefore not enforceable.
- The decision was historically read as a categorical “no contribution among joint tortfeasors” rule, though later commentary often tied its logic to conscious, wilful, or intentional wrongdoing rather than accidental negligence.
- The case’s rule became influential in later doctrine, including later expansion in some jurisdictions to bar contribution even for non-intentional torts, before later statutory reforms in various systems authorized contribution in many settings.

## Conclusion

The court refused to allow one joint tortfeasor, having paid the full amount of a joint judgment to the injured party, to shift part of that loss to a co-tortfeasor through contribution, reflecting the common-law refusal to assist parties treated as equally culpable participants in a wrongful act.


Merryweather v. Nixan, 101 Eng. Rep. 1337 (K.B. 1799)