Can a plaintiff and defendant jointly guarantee the company's obligation to the bank under separate instruments?

I have considered the fact that the plaintiff and defendant did not enter into joint guarantees, but guaranteed the company's obligation to the bank separately under separate instruments. If the parties are co-sureties for the same principal and the same debt, in the absence of an agreement between them, they are equally responsible to each other. This principle was enunciated by Eyre C.J. in Deering v. The Earl of Winchelsea (1787), 2 Bos & P. 270 where he said: In the particular case of sureties, it is admitted that one surety may compel another to contribute to the debt for which they are jointly bound. On what principle? Can it be because they are jointly bound? What if they are jointly and severally bound? What if severally bound by the same or different instruments? In every one of those cases sureties have a common interest and a common burthen. They are bound as effectively quoad contribution, as if bound in one instrument, with this difference only that the sums in each instrument ascertain their propositions whereas if they were joined in the same engagement, they must all contribute equally. (emphasis added)