Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/761

 754 PEDEEAIi BEPOBTBB. �erred in refusîng to require the plaintiffs to produce the origi- nal bond. �2. Both parties used tJbe certifled copy of the bond during the trial, but the defendants objected to its admission in evi- dence, beoause it contains the condition, in addition to those specifically named in the act of congress, that the obligors Bhall not he liable, if each and every deputy appointed by the collector shall truly and faithfully execute and discharge ail the duties of such deputy collector acbording to law; the argument being that a bond, though in ail other respects correct, is not such a bond as the act of congress requires if it contains that provision. Law and justice concur that the collector is responsible for the acts and doings of his deputies, as they are his appointees^ and the act of congress requires him to compensate them for their services. They are, in a certain sense, his agents ; and, inasmuch as he is responsible for their acts, he may require every such appointee to execute to him a bond, with sureties, for the faithful performance of his duties. Whether such provision is or not contained in the bond of the collector, he is responsible for the acts and doings of his deputies ; and I am of the opinion that the pro- vision is justified by the due construction of the act of con- gress, and that the objection is without merit. Suppose it were otherwise, still the objection to the ruling of the court cannot prevail, as it is shownthat the bond, even though not authorized by the act of congress, would be valid as a com- mon-law contract. U. S. v. Tingey, 5 Pet. 114, 128; U. S. v. Bradley, 10 Pet. 343-362 ; Tyler v. Hand, 1 How. 673- 583; U. S. V. Hodson,. 10 Wall. 395, 406. �3. Due settlement of the account of the collector had been made by the accounting officers of the department, and the plaintiffs offered the certified transoript of the same in evi- dence, to which the defendants objected, insisting that the transoript is not competent evidence in this case, which is an action against the sureties, without joining the principal. Sureties are clearly liable for the defaults of the principal, to the estent that the same are covered by the officiai bond ; ����