Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/115

 UNITED STATES V. m'cAETNEÏ. 107 �ReesY. Berrington, 2 Lead. Cas.Eq. (4th Am. Ed.) 1867-i913. The language used in the foregoing extract is taken from one of the decisions which I shall cite, and the context and cita- tions show that it refers to publie oiïïcers, and to the weight of authority in the United States. A similar statement is made in Brandt's Suretyship, § 469. I have examined the cases eited by these authors, and some others, and fiind their positions to be sustained. �The sureties of a postmaster arenot dischargedby the sub- sequent passage of an act raising the rates of postage. Post- master Gen. V. Munger, 2 Paine, 189; Boody v. U. S. 1 W. & M. 150. It was held in White t. Fox, 22 Maine, 341, that the sureties of a clerk of court remain liable though a penalty of 25 per cent, per annum is afterwards imposed by law for a failure by the clerk to pay over his surplus fees in due sea- son. In that case Shepley, J., said : "If the sureties on the officiai bonds of persons holding offices created by law, and the duties of which are prescribed' by law, were to be dis- charged by every change of the law relating to the duties, it would, in these days of over frequent change, be to little pur- pose to trouble officers to obtain sureties. There is little of similarity between such cases and those arising out of offices or tr jsts whose duties are assigned or regulated by contract." Page 347. �Like decisions have been made in several states and cir- cuits in regard to sheriffs, constables, collectors of taxes, col- lectors of customs, and other officers. Illinois v. Ridgeway, 12 111. 14 ; Smith v. Peoria Co., 59 111. 412 ; People v. Vilas, 36 N. Y. 459-465 ; Mayor v. Sibberns, 3 Abb. App. Cas. 266 ; Bartlett v. The Govermr, 2 Bibb, 586 ; Colter v. Morgan, 12 B. Mon. 278 ; Corn. v. Gabbert, 5 Bush, 438 ; Marney v. State, 13 Mo. 7; King v, Nicholaa, 16 Ohio St. 80; U. S, v. Gaussen, 2 Woods, 92. �The decision last cited was affirmed on anotjier ground, and the supreme court has never decided this point, but the remarks of Strong, J., show it to be his opinion that the bond will not be discharged unless duties of a different nature are imposed, or (which is the English way of putting it) the ��� �