case clayton against Kynaston two deed make at the same time not have  reference to each other not to be construe defeasance S c post S c salk S c  salk S c holt S c ld ray Clayton executor of William Wintershall bring  covenant against Edward Kynaston and the plaintiff declare on article of  agreement the ten of may between killigrew Kynaston and other the king player  on one part and Wintershall on the other wherein it be joint and several agree  that if the say William Wintershall shall be mind to leave off act and give  notice thereof in write c that he shall have five shilling allow he every act  day c and if the say William Wintershall shall happen to die before such  notice in write that then one hundred pound shall be pay to his executor  within six month after his death provide that such notice shall not be give  but in a act week the plaintiff assign for breach that Wintershall modern  report after the make of the indenture aforesaid die at London the seven of  July and that the hundred pound be not pay within the six month after his  death the defendant plead that at the time of make of the aforesaid indenture  another indenture be make between the say Wintershall and Thomas killigrew on  the one part and Edward Kynaston on the other part whereby it be joint and  several agree that if c set out verbatim the same covenant and agreement as in  the former indenture the say Kynaston shall have a mind to leave off act he  shall be discharge from all debt sum of money contract and promise for the use  of the society or concern the same c and then he say that two year before the  death of William Wintershall he give notice accord to the covenant of his  intention to leave off act and accord two year before Wintershalls death leave  off act whereby he become discharge from the say covenant and from pay the  hundred pound and pray judgement and thereon the plaintiff demurrer holt chief  justice deliver the judgement of the court that the deed plead by the  defendant be no defeasance of the deed declare on by the plaintiff because  both the deed be make at one and the same time it can never be the intention  of the party that they shall defeat each other and one deed have no reference  to the other as in all those case that have be construe to be defeasance for  if Kynaston by desist shall be discharge of his covenant Wintershalls security  will be very much diminish if not total destroy and it may be the several  remedy be also modern report er p for where two be joint and several bind in a  bind a release to one discharge the other but he say he will not give any  opinion what the law will be in such case in the case of covenant but that the  joint remedy be destroy be without doubt and certain it can never be the  intent of the party that the deed shall be void as soon as it be make but if a  be oblige to b and then b recite the obligation covenant to save he harmless  absolute or upon contingency this amount to a absolute defeasance in one case  and after the contingency happen in the other case to prevent circuity of  action but here be no relation between the two deed and the word of the  covenant be to be discharge and save harmless absolute or upon a contingency c  before make or afterward to be make but no mention be make of security give at  the same time beside that the intent of the party be that they shall be mutual  security and therefore one modern report deed can not be a defeasance to the  other and judgement be give for the plaintiff