§ I. On the Order of Restitution Among Cooperators

For assigning the order of restitution in solidum among cooperators in damage to another, one must consider whether any one of them is the principal or primary cause of the damage; whether secondary or subordinate; whether, finally, collateral or equal. For cooperators can concur in damage either in the same mode or degree, or in a diverse mode. These things having been noted:

I say. If all have concurred in the same mode, each must equally restore in solidum conditionally, without any determined order, because none of them assumed greater danger. I said conditionally, that is, when the rest of the cooperators would not restore, or no one would pay in solidum. But if they concur in a diverse mode, you will again distinguish: for restitution must be made either from theft or from mere damage. If from theft, in the first place the possessor is held, who has the thing in individual form or in equivalent, or who unjustly consumed it; then the one mandating, or the robber if the one mandating is lacking; in the third place the rest of the positive cooperators are held; finally the negative cooperators. But if from damage, the one mandating is held first, when there was one; for he is the principal cause; secondly the executor, even when he acted in the name of some one mandating, because relatively to the others, according to the common opinion, he is the principal cause; then the rest of the positive cooperators; finally the negative cooperators. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 580; and Hom. Ap., n. 60. - Vogler, n. 361.

You Will Resolve. - 1st. Secondary causes are held to nothing if the principal cause has restored or obtained remission of the debt; for secondary causes are held only in defect of the principal cause. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 581.

2nd. If one of the less principal causes restores, the principal cause is held to make him indemnified, because the less principal cause acquires the right of the creditor against the principal. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, ibid.

3rd. If the creditor releases a secondary cause from the obligation, for that reason the principal cause is not freed, because the obligation of the principal cause is independent of the obligation of the secondary cause. Indeed, although the creditor remits to one of the secondary causes, for that reason the other secondary causes are not free from the obligation of restoring their part, unless the condonation was altogether full, or can deservedly be presumed such. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, ibid.