(k) Union Bank v. Ridgely, 1 Har. & G. 324, which was an action against the sureties of a cashier for the faithful performance of his duties. The charter of the bank expired, and was extended by a new act of the legislature. The alleged default of the cashier occurred after the re-enactment of the charter. The court held, that where an act of incorporation, under which a bond was taken to secure the * ground that his liability was exactly defined when he assumed it, and could not be enlarged or varied without his consent, either by the party receiving the guaranty or by the operation of law. In England it has been held that the surety on the bond of a clerk of a railroad company, which was dissolved and united with another railroad company also dissolved, by a statute providing that all such bonds should remain in force, was responsible for the default of the clerk after the union. (7)

The Supreme Court of the United States have taken strong ground upon this point. They have decided that the surety is discharged not merely by payment of the debt or a release of the principal, but by any material change in the relations between the principal and the party to whom he owes a debt or duty; and that the surety cannot be held in such case by showing that the change was not injurious to him. For he had a right to judge for himself of the circumstances under which he was willing to be liable, and to stand upon the very terms of his contract. (m) 1 the good conduct of one of the officers of the corporation, was limited in its duration to a certain period, the bond must have the same limitation; because, the parties looking to that act, it would seem to be very clear that no responsibility was contemplated beyond the period of its specified existence. The extension of the charter beyond the period of its first limitation by legislative authority does not enter into the contract, and cannot enlarge it. See S. C. Society v. Johnson, 1 McCord, 41. In the case of Bamford v. Iles, 3 Exch. 380, a bond, reciting that A was appointed assistant overseer of the parish of M., was conditioned for the due performance of his duties, "thenceforth from time to time, and at all times, so long as he should continue in such office." On the 25th June, 1840, a vestry meeting was held, at which A was elected assistant overseer until the 25th March, 1841, at a salary of 8d. in the pound on some sums collected, and 4d. on others. Two justices, by their warrant, dated 9th July, 1840, reciting the vestry resolution, and that this salary had been fixed for the execution of his office until the 25th of March then next, stated, that in pursuance of the 59 Geo. III. c. 12, they appointed him assistant overseer. On the 25th March, 1841, he was again elected to the same office, at a salary of £50 per annum, and was reappointed by the justices, and he continued to be so re-elected and reappointed by the justices until March, 1846. On ceasing to hold office, he retained moneys in his hands. Held, that the sureties were not liable on the bond. See also Mayor of Berwick-upon-Tweed v. Oswald, 16 E. L. & E. 236; s. c. 1 E. & B. 295; Frank v. Edwards, 16 E. L. & E. 477, n.; s. c. 8 Exch. 214; Northwestern Railway Co. v. Whinray, 26 E. L. & E. 488; s. c. 10 Exch. 77; Kitson v. Julian, 30 E. L. & E. 326; 8. c. 4 E. & B. 854; Jamison v. Cosby, 11 Humph. 273. And see Oswald v. Mayor of Berwick-upon-Tweed, 26 E. L. & E. 85; 8. c. 3 E. & B. 653; Mayor of Cambridge v. Dennis, 21 Law Rep. 375.

(/) Eastern Union R. Co. v. Cochrane, 9 Exch. 197.

(m) Miller v. Stewart, 9 Wheat. 680. In this case a bond was given, conditioned for the faithful performance of the duties erated by an increase of the capital of the bank, from liability for default of the cashier made after the increase. (mm) l

1 Any change in the contract without the surety's consent releases him, Calvo v. Davies, 73 N. Y. 211 ; and it is immaterial whether he is injured or benefited, Paine v. Jones, 76 N. Y. 274; unless he assents to the change, Sage v.Strong, 40 Wis. 575. The following alterations have been held to release a surety: the furnishing a more powerful engine and boiler for a higher price than the agreement called for, Grant v. Smith, 46 N. Y. 93; the addition of another joint maker to a note, Hamilton v. Hooper, 46 Ia. 515: the addition of "surety," Robinson v. Reed, 46 Ia. 219; or erasure, Lamb v.

So in Massachusetts, the sureties on a cashier's bond, are exonof the office of deputy collector of direct taxes for eight certain townships, and the instrument of the appointment, referred to in the bond, was afterwards altered, so as to extend to another township, without the consent of the sureties. The court held, that the surety was discharged from his responsibility for moneys subsequently collected by his principal. See also United States v. Tillotson, 1 Paine, C. C. 305; United States v. Hillegas, 3 Wash. C C. 70; Postmaster-General v. Reeder, 4 id. 678; Chute v. Pattee, 37 Me. 102. In Mayhew v. Boyd, 5 Md. 102, it was held, that any dealings with the principal debtor by the creditor, which amount to a departure from the contract by which a surety is bound, and which by possibility might materially vary or enlarge the latter's liability without his assent, discharges the surety. In the case of Bonar v. McDonald, 3 H. of L. Cas. 226; s. c. I E. L. & E. 1, in the House of Lords, the facts were, that in a bond by cautioners (sureties) for the careful attention to business and the faithful discharge of the duties of an agent of a bank, it was provided "that he should have no other business of any kind, nor be connected in any shape with any trade, manufacture, or mercantile copartnery, nor be agent for any individual or copartnery in any manner or way whatsoever, nor be security for any individual or copartnery in any manner or way whatsoever." The bank subsequently, without the knowledge of the sureties, increased the salary of the agent, he undertaking to bear one fourth part of all losses which might be incurred by his discounts. Held, affirming the decision of a majority of the court below, that this was such an alteration of the contract, and of the liability of the agent, that the sureties were discharged, notwithstanding that the loss arose, not from discounts, but from improper conduct of the agent. And see Small v. Currie, 27 E. L. & E. 304. But in Stewart v. McKean, 29 E. L. & E. 383, s. c. 10 Exch. 675, the plaintiffs, bottle manufacturers, appointed W. M. their agent for the sale of bottles, on commission, and received the following guaranty: "I hereby agree to guarantee my brother, W. M.'s intromissures, as your agent in Leith, to the extent of £500." The terms of the sale between the plaintiffs and W. M., at the time of the guaranty, were that the moneys received should be remitted from time to time, and an account of sales rendered at the end of each month, or when required, and an account current every three weeks. It was soon after agreed between the plaintiffs and W. M. that the account current should be rendered every six months, and subsequently, in pursuance of an agreement between them, W. M. from time to time gave his promissory notes to the plaintiffs, payable four months from date, for sums having no relation to the amount due, transmitted to W. M. the difference between the money then in his hands and the amount of the notes. The defendant had no knowledge of, and never inquired as to the original or subsequent terms of delivery. It was held (Pollock, C. B., dissenting), that the alteration in the mode of accounting and paying did not discharge the surety. In Mitchell v. Burton, 2 Head, 613, it was held, that if two or more persons become the sureties of a third person, to a bond, and the obligees and principal obligor erase the name of, and release one of the sureties, without the knowledge or consent of the co-sureties, or their subsequent ratification of the same, they are not bound on said bond. And further, that if, however, the obligation after such erasure, is presented to other persons, who sign the same as sureties, they are bound by their undertaking, although they may be ignorant of the circumstances of the erasure, and of the fact that the other sureties on the bond are released thereby. The erasure was visible, and they should have ascertained all the facts in reference thereto before signing the obligation, and not having done so, are bound by their act. See also General Steam Navigation Co. v. Rolt, 95 Eng. C. L. 550.