In the present case, since the debt was a valid common burden in its origin ( Connor v. Craig, 226 Mass. 255, 257, 258), the fact that one debtor has acquired a personal defence by the running of the statute of limitations against an action by the creditor, does not absolve him from his duty to contribute which arises upon the payment of the debt by the other debtor who has no such defence. Wood v. Leland, 1 Met. 387, 388. Goldthwait v. Day, 149 Mass. 185, 188. Boardman v. Paige, 11 N.H. 431. Young v. Burnett, 81 N.H. 163. Hard v. Mingle, 141 App. Div. (N.Y.) 170, affirmed 206 N.Y. 179. Frew v. Scoular, 101 Neb. 131; L.R.A. 1917 F, 1065. See also Thayer v. Daniels, 110 Mass. 345; Seabury v. Sibley, 183 Mass. 105, 107. There is nothing inconsistent with this in Spelman v. Talbot, 123 Mass. 489.