SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON REHEARING
DAVISON, Justice.Plaintif f urges on rehearing that we consider and determine the force and effect of 12 O.S.1961, § 831. Plaintiff contends this statute is in derogation of the common law rule and changed the substantive law that at common law joint tortfeasors, as. a general rule, have no right of contribution among themselves.
*242Section 831 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows:
“When property, liable to an execution against several persons, is sold thereon, and more than a due proportion of the judgment is laid upon the property of one of them, or one of them pays, without a sale, more than his proportion, he may regardless of the nature of the demand upon which the judgment was rendered, compel contribution from the others; and when a judgment is against several, and is upon an obligation of one of them, as security for another, and the surety pays the amount, or any part thereof, either by sale of his property or before sale, he may compel repayment from the principal; in such case, the person so paying or contributing, is entitled to the benefit of the judgment, to enforce contribution or repayment, if within ten days after his payment he file with the clerk of court where the judgment was rendered, notice of his payment and claim to contribution or repayment. Upon a filing of such notice, the clerk shall make an entry thereof in the margin of the d<?cket.”
This statute first appeared as Statutes 1893, § 4373, except that the phrase “regardless of the nature of the demand upon which the judgment was rendered” was not included therein. The quoted language was inserted in connection with the compilation and revision of laws resulting in Revised Laws 1910, § 5188. The statute in its first and later form was not mentioned in Fakes v. Price, 18 Okl. 413, 89 P. 1123 (1907) and Cain v. Quannah Light & Ice Co., 131 Okl. 25, 267 P. 641 (1928).
This court has not had occasion to construe § 831 in a situation involving a claim of contribution between joint tortfea-sors. We have considered the statute in other kinds of actions. In Miller v. Andrews, 171 Okl. 479, 43 P.2d 415, a judgment was rendered on a note against the maker and his surety. The surety paid the judgment and then sought to enforce contribution from his principal by issuing execution in the case, but neglected to file the notice required by the statute. The decision held that the surety could not have the benefit of the contribution provisions of the statute because he had failed to comply with the requirements of the statute. In Walsh v. Kuder, 186 Okl. 68, 95 P.2d 876, we held, in a case where judgment was rendered against the principal and two sureties on a fidelity bond, that the surety paying the judgment and complying with the provisions of the statute could have an execution issued in the case and levied upon the property of the other surety to enforce contribution. In Keyes v. Dyer, 206 Okl. 325, 243 P.2d 710, the surety brought an independent action against his principal for reimbursement of money paid by him in satisfaction of a judgment recovered against them on their note. We held the remedy of the surety under § 831 for contribution was cumulative and that a surety who failed to proceed under § 831 was not precluded from pursuing his remedy for reimbursement under another statute giving him that right. In support of this conclusion there is cited the case of City of Ft. Scott v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co., 66 Kan. 610, 72 P. 238, infra, for the proposition that the filing of the notice of payment and claim for reimbursement by the judgment debtor who paid the joint judgment, as required by the statute, was not necessary to enable him to bring an independent action to compel contribution from his codefendant judgment debtor.
It will be observed that in all of these Oklahoma cases the surety seeking contribution or reimbursement had a clear and express right to this relief under § 831 or some other statute.
In 18 Am.Jur.2d, Contribution, § 77, p. 114, it is stated relative to statutes similar to § 831, supra, as follows :
“Statutes of this character, however, usually are held to be cumulative and not to abrogate existing remedies, since they are not intended to restrict, but rather to enlarge, the common-law doctrine of contribution. They constitute a change in procedural, rather than substantive law, and, manifestly, if the clear purpose of *243such a statute is to make the summary remedy available to a judgment debtor who is entitled to contribution, it is not applicable to the case of a defendant whose payment of the judgment gives him no right to contribution. Under such a statute, if a party attempts to enforce contribution when he is not entitled to it or for an amount greater than that to which he is entitled, his action may be enjoined.” (emphasis ours).
See also 18 C.J.S. Contribution § llb(5) p. 21.
In Adams v. White Bus Line, 184 Cal. 710, 195 P. 389, it is stated, relative to a civil procedure statute on the order of that under discussion, as follows:
“ * * * That section does not pretend to deal with the matter of the right of contribution between tort-feasors. Its plain intent is to simply provide that, when there is a judgment against two or more defendants who are entitled to contribution from each other and one pays the whole or more than his proportion thereof, 'the person so paying or contributing is entitled to the benefit of the judgment to enforce contribution or repayment. * * *’ It certainly cannot be said that the Legislature, while enacting section 709 as a part of the law of procedure, necessarily intended to change, or did change, the fundamental principle that there is no right of contribution between joint tort-feasors.”
See also Kemerer v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 201 Minn. 239, 276 N.W. 228, 114 A.L.R. 173, and Coble v. Lacey, 257 Minn. 352, 101 N.W.2d 594, to the extent that they hold such summary procedure statutes make no change in the substantive law of contribution.
Plaintiff argues that we should follow the early Kansas case of City of Ft. Scott v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co., 66 Kan. 610, 72 P. 238 (1903), in which it was held, under a statute identical to ours as it existed prior to the 1910 revision, supra, that contri-' bution could be had between joint judgment tortfeasors because it construed the statute to cover all kinds of judgments and to apply to judgments in tort actions as well as those based upon contract.
Plaintiff further contends that the insertion in the R.L.1910, § 5188, of the words “regardless of the nature of the demand upon which the judgment was rendered” was in derogation of the common law and evidenced an intent to extend the right of contribution to joint tortfeasors who paid the entire judgment.
We do not agree with either of these contentions.
The conclusion of the Kansas Court in the City of Ft. Scott case was based entirely on its interpretation of the language of the statute. The conclusion was reached without any discussion as to the nature and character of such statutes and with no citation of authority in support thereof. From our research it appears that the Kansas court has not subsequently cited the decision for the stated point of law. The Kansas statute therein involved (§ 4926, Gen. St. 1901) has been replaced by K.S.A. 60-2413, L.1963, and provides in pertinent part as follows:
“A right of contribution or indemnity among judgment debtors, arising out of the payment of the judgment by one or more of them, may be enforced by execution against the property of the judgment debtor from whom contribution or indemnity is sought.”
In Alseike v. Miller (1966), 196 Kan. 547, 412 P.2d 1007, the court stated Kansas adheres to the common law rule that there is no right of contribution between joint tort-feasors.
Under our decisions the basic law in Oklahoma is that as between joint tortfea-sors there is no right of contribution. We decline to approve the interpretation given the statute in the City of Ft. Scott case.
It is our further opinion that the 1910 addition of the words “regardless of the nature of the demand upon which the judgment was rendered” to the statute is not *244sufficient to vest the right of contribution in joint tortfeasors where such right had not previously existed.
In Golden v. Golden, 155 Okl. 10, 8 P.2d 42, 45, 46, it is stated:
“The word ‘demand’ is defined in Words & Phrases, First Series, vol. 2, at page 1974, as follows:
‘According to Lord Coke the word “demand” is the largest word in the law, except “claim,” and a release of demands discharges all sorts of rights and titles, conditions, before or after breach, executions, appeals, rents of all kinds, covenants, annuities, contracts, recognizances, statutes, commons, etc. Vedder v. Vedder (N.Y.) 1 Denio, 257,261.
‘A demand is a claim; a legal obligation. “Demand” is a word of art, of an extent greater in its signification than any other word, except “claim.” A release of all demands is in general a release of all covenants, real or personal, conditions, whether broken or not, annuities, obligations, contracts, and the like. State v. Baxter, 38 Ark. 462, 467.”
We will not attempt to explore or state the rights, or lack of rights, to contribution that parties have in the numerous situations falling within the term “demand.” The very fact that the word includes such a great variety of circumstances giving rise to actions between parties, and that approval of plaintiff’s contention would result in a right to contribution in all such cases without regard to previously existing rules of law regarding such liability, leads to the conclusion that the statute was procedural and did not change the substantive law.
The statute is a procedural statute and was only intended to furnish a summary remedy whereby a party entitled to contribution may have the “benefit of the judgment” in enforcing his right to contribution. This conclusion is reflected in our decision in Keyes v. Dyer, supra, in which we held that the remedies of a surety under § 831 and other statutes were cumulative and his failure to proceed under § 831, did not preclude him from pursuing his remedy for reimbursement under another applicable statute.
If we construe § 831 in accordance with the plaintiff’s contention the effect of the statute would be to destroy a valid defense to a joint tortfeasor’s action for contribution which was available to the defendant joint tortfeasor before the enactment of the statute. This construction of the statute would take away a valuable substantive right from a joint tortfeasor. 18 Am.Jur.2d § 42, p. 63. In Roxana Petroleum Co. v. Cope, 132 Okl. 152, 269 P. 1084, 60 A.L.R. 837, we held that a valuable right existing by common law will not be abrogated by a subsequent statute which did not expressly, nor by necessary implication, destroy such previously existing right.
Plaintiff cites Hambright v. City of Cleveland, Okl., 360 P.2d 493, as constituting a recognition by us that the statute was available to judgment debtors. In that case the judgment for personal injuries was rendered against an employee of the City, and against the City on the ground of respon-deat superior. The City urged the release of the judgment as to the employee deprived the City of its right to reimbursement from the employee. We pointed out that the City, upon paying the balance of the judgment, in addition to subrogation, had a right to contribution under the statute and an action on an implied contract of indemnity. Citing 42 C.J.S. Indemnity § 21. The case did not involve a judgment based on liability as a joint tortfeasor. It is not in point.
There is no merit in plaintiff’s contention.
It is our conclusion that 12 O.S.1961, § 831, did not change the rule denying contribution where one joint tortfeasor satisfied a joint judgment for tort liability.
Judgment affirmed as modified by the original opinion.
JACKSON, C. J., IRWIN, V. C. J., and WILLIAMS, BLACKBIRD, BERRY and LAVENDER, JJ., concur.