Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/431

 ASAHS V. HTAMS. 417 �judges of the election in the discharge of their duties," I am unable to see any valid objection to them. They follow the law, and the facts alleged constitute, beyond doubt, an unlawful interference within the plain meaning of the statute. The demurrer will be overruled. �Note. ' A governor of a state is not " an oflScer of election" within the meaning of section 22 of the act of May 31, 1870, (section 5615, Rev. St.) U. S. V. Clayton, 2 Dill. 219 ; 19 Am. Law Rep. 737 ; 10 Am. Law Reg. {N. S.) 737. See Gianque's U. S. Election Laws, 35 et seq. ���Adams and another, Assignees, v. Hyams and another. �{Circuit Court, £>. Conneeticut. August, 1881.) �1. Session L^ws dp Conneoticct of 1860, c. 348, } 5, Consteubd— Liabilitt op �BUBETIBS THEREUNDER. �Dnder section 5 of chapter 348 of the Session Laws of Connecticut of 1860, sureties of an assignee in insolvency are liable upon their bond in case of their principal's default, though it consista in refusing to obey an order made to sub- vert the assignmeut. Qu/ere, whether or not an acoounting before the county judge is a prerequisite to an action. �2. Session Laws of 1877, c. 466, Constbued— Actions against Suebtibs. �Chapter 466, of the Session Laws of Connecticut of 1877, did not maite an accounting before some specified court a prerequisite to an action against such sureties. �3. BAME— RiGHTS OP SniiETIES AS Apfbcted Thereby. �No substantial rights of such sureties were impaired by the repeal of the act of 1860 by the act of 1877. �William Y. Wilson, for plaintiffs. �Philip J. Joachimson, for defendants. �Shipman, D. J. Upon the facts which have been heretofore found the defendants insist that they are not liable in this suit, because they say that, under the fifth section of chapter 348 of the Session Laws of 1860, if the default of an assignee in insolvency consisted in a refusai to obey an order or decree made to subvert and not to carry out the assignment, an action will not lie against his sureties upon their bond, and also that an accounting by the assignee before the court of common pleas was prerequisite to a suit against his sureties. The defendants rely upon the construction which was placed upon this section in the case of People t. Ckalmers, 1 Hun, 686, and 60 N. Y. 154. �The fourth section of the act provided in substance that after the v.8,no.6— 27 ��� �