Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/118

 llO FEDBBAL BBlI'OaTBB. �States the expenses and salary of store -keepers. The action upon the bond aJleged as a breach the non-payment of certain taxes, and the failure to reiraburse these expenses which had been paid by the United States befo^e the passage of the joint resolution. The point that the bond was entirely discharged does not appear to have been taken, and the court revers ed the ruling whieh had decided that no taxes were due, and, of course, upheld the bond pro tanto. As to the salary of a store-keeper, they held that the joint resolution did not apply to salaries paid before its passage; but that, if it did, the parties could not be supposed to have had in mind that the United States would pass a law throwing the ex- penses of their own officers upon the distiller. �In People v. Tompkins, 74 111, 482, A. was appointed chief inspecter of grain in a certain city and gave bond. The law imposed important duties upon the inspecter, and his liabil- ities were correspondingly great ; but they looked to a careful and impartial inspection of grain, and not to any direct pe- cuniary responsibility. The duties of chief inspecter might be regulated to a certain estent by certain commissioners, and after the bond was given A. was duly required by the commissioners to reeeive and account for the fees of inspec- tion. The court held that while such a designation of duty was within the power of the commissioners, the sureties could have had no reason to expect that a responsibility of that na- ture would be imposed upon their principal. �In this case the obligation imposed upon McCartney to pay store-keepers in addition to his own salary and commissions, and the payment of assessors, assistant assessors, clerks, etc., appears to me to be ejusdem generis with those duties which the obligors knew he was to perform, and, therefore, to bring this case within the general ruie. �Notwithstanding general rules every contract must be inter- preted by its own words ; but I do not find anything in this bond to take it out of the rule. The recital that McCartney had been designated as disbursing agent to pay the expenses incident to the internai revenue laws, when construed by the light of the law prevailing in the United States, refers to fu- ��� �