Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/833

 UNITED STATES V. CAMPBELL. 821 �principal. The original liquidation, which was "conclusive upon all persous in interest," would have precluded him from any sueh recov- ery. Nor can the surety be charged with any faalt in net procuring an earlier reliquidation, or a correction of an error of which he is not shown to have had any knowledge. As the liquidation must precede payment of the duties, the bond itself imports an obligation upon the government to make this liquidation before the expiration of the three years' term of credit to the importer, which is the utmost limit of the surety's stipulated risk; and, if reliquidation is not made within that period, it cannot be asserted afterwards against the surety, because incompatible with the legal limitation of his risk which the bond itself imports. �Again, the terms of the bond, which provide that the goods shall be "withdrawn upon payment of the duties, " necesaarily import that the withdrawal and the payment are to be concurrent acts. The obliga- tion of the government to make the liquidation before withdrawal is, therefort, as much a part of the contract as the obligation of the bonds- men to pay the duties upon withdrawal ; the former is a necessary condition of the latter. The provision for payment " upon withdrawal" also enures directly to the benefit and to the safety of the surety, and the liquidation having been made, and the goods delivered over in reg- ular conrse upon payment of the amount so liquidated, the govern- ment would seem to be estopped from any subsequent reliquidation to the prejudice of the surety. Such would manifestly be the resuit as between individuals ; and in its express contracta with its citizens the United States, it is said by the chief justice in Bostwick v. TJ. S. 94 U. S. 58, 66, "are controlled by the same laws that govern the citi- zen in that behalf. AU obligation which would be implied against citizens in the same circumstances will be implied against them." McKrdght v. U. S. 98 U. S. 179, 186; U. S. v. Barker, 12 Wheat. 55S ; Cookcy. U. S. 91 U. S. 396. �However this may be, it seems to me clear that the right to reliq- uidate is not an absolute right. It is not conferred by any statutory authority. It is a privilege which has been sustained by the courts as against the importer, who is liable, irrespective of the bond, for whatever duties ought to have been fixed and paid by him. The surety is liable upon the bond only. The right to reliquidate can- not be asserted, as against him, contrary to the implied terms of the bond; and any reliquidation by the government must, therefore, be made within the limited period of his risk as stipulated in the con- tract. ��� �