Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/832

 820 FEDERAL REPORTER. �creased beyond that which he bas expressly assumed by bis contract. If the creditor do so, the surety is thereby discharged. A postpone- ment of the time of payment dischargea a snrety, beeause otherwise it would continue the surety 's risk beyond the stipulated period; it prevents bim from paying the debt at the time agreed on, and from proceeding at once for bis indemnity against bis principal, or against any other securities beld for the debt. These general principles of the law of suretyship, and the rule that a surety's obligation is lim- ited to bis contract strictissimijuris, apply to contracta witb the United States the same as to those witb individuals. Miller v. Stcwart, 9 Wheat. 681, 703; U. S.\. Hodge, 6 How. 279, 283 ; U. S. v. Hillegas, 3 Wash. C. C. 70; U. S. v. Tillotson, 1 Paine, C. G. 305; U. S. v. Bostwick, 94 U. S. 53, 66. �By the terms of this bond the defendant bad the right, as surety, to determine bis risk by payment of the "legal duties" at the end of three years, or so soon as any deficiency should be ascertained under the provisions of law for the sale by government of any goods atill on band, and immediately thereafter to proceed for indemnity against bis principal. That was the extreme limit of time during wbich the surety's right to proceed for bis indemnity againat bis principal could, under this contract, be suspended. That was the utmost duration of bis risk to wbich, by bis contract, he bad assented. To uphold a claim against the surety based upon a reliquidation made after seven years would be postponing bis right to proceed against bis principal for indemnity, and extending the period of bis risk to that length of time, instead of three years only, as provided by the bond, witb the additional period necessary for a sale of any goods not witbdrawn. U. S. v. De Visser, 10 Fed. Eep. 642. �Tbe government eannot increase or prolong this risk indirectly through a reliquidation long after the prescribed period of credit bas passed, any more than it could do so directly by an express extension of the time of payment. The resalt of both is the same. The liqui- dation of the duties was an ecsential condition precedent to their final payment. The obligation to liquidate and fix the amount of duties devolved by law upon the colleetor. The surety is not legally eharge- able witb any duty in that respect. It is neither any part of bis con- tract, nor devolved on bim by law ; and the liquidation, when made by the officers charged witb the duty of making it, was "final and con- elusive" upon bim, and be bad no power to change it. Until reliqui- dation the surety could not have paid any increased duties, and then have recovered the amount so paid in any action against bis ��� �