13 S. Ct. 705, collecting authorities, holding the government cannot be held liable for amount of bonds cancelled without authority of law by the register of the treasurer; United States v. Verdier, 164 U. S. 216, 219, 41 L. 408, 409, 17 S. Ct. 43, 44, holding that neglect of postmaster-general to adjust a postmaster's account was no bar to the right of the government to interest on balance found due.

In the inferior Federal courts are the following upon the syllabus principle: United States v. Cutter, 2 Curt. 625, F. C. 14,911, misappropriation by navy agent of public moneys paid to him contrary to law; Postmaster-General v. Munger, 2 Paine, 197, F. C. 11,309, omission of the postmaster-general to discharge a postmaster in arrears; Locke v. Postmaster-General, 3 Mason, 455, F. C. 8,441, neg. lect of postmaster-general to sue for balances due by postmasters; Postmaster-General v. Reeder, 4 Wash. C. 680, F. C. 11,311, to same effect; Raymond v. United States, 14 Blatchf. 52, F. C. 11,596, neglect of secretary of navy to arrest and prosecute a paymaster who was squandering the money in his hands; United States v. Barnes, 24 Blatchf. 472, 31 Fed. 709, failure of government to prove claim against a bankrupt's estate, held not to discharge assignee from personal liability when he distributed the assets having knowledge of the claim; United States v. City of Alexandria, 4 Hughes, 549, 19 Fed. 611, holding that time was no bar to an action to compel city of Alexandria to specific performance of contract made fortyfive years before suit brought; United States v. Southern, etc., Coal, etc., Co., 5 McCrary, 573, 18 Fed. 279, applied in suits to set aside land patents on ground of fraud; United States v. Hosmer, 26 Fed. Cas. 377, failure of assessor to obtain mortgagee's consent prior to use of premises as distillery; United States v. Minturn, 26 Fed. Cas. 1273, arguendo, that surety on importer's bond not discharged because goods are allowed to be withdrawn from warehouse before duties are paid; United States v. Potter, 27 Fed. Cas. 604, holding statute authorizing salary of an officer in arrears to be withheld forms no part of contract with sureties; United States v. Wright, 28 Fed. Cas. 794, extending time of a postmaster to settle his accounts; Williams v. Lyman, 88 Fed. 241, holding internal revenue collector's negligence in not examining his deputy's accounts, would not release the deputy's sureties; United States v. Pine, etc., Logging Co., 89 Fed. 917, holding government not bound by its timber agent's derelictions; United States v. Little Miami, etc., R. R. Co., 1 Fed. 701, holding in action against a corporation for taxes, statute of limitations has no application; United States v. De Visser, 10 Fed. 652, arguendo, with reference to operation of the warehouse act of 1861, as affecting sureties to the bond; United States v. Saylor, 31 Fed. 549, holding that sureties on a postmaster's bond were liable for a rebate received by him secretly from the landlord of the office, and for the rent of a newspaper stand sublet, although no claim had been made by the inspectors; United States v. Adams, 54 Fed.

116, failure of government to present claim against estate of a deceased marshal; Meads v. United States, 81 Fed. 688, 54 U. S. App. 150, holding that department regulations of the land office cannot enlarge or restrict the liability of an officer on his bond.

The principal case has had a numerous following in the State courts upon this proposition. Thus in State v. Brewer, 64 Ala. 298, holding estoppels against a State cannot arise from laches of its officers; Hill v. State, 23 Ark. 610, collecting authorities, and hold. ing that the statute of nonclaim barred the State as to claim against estate of decedent; Ex parte Christian, 23 Ark. 642, 643, failure to require settlement from a collector prior to his becoming insolvent; Woodruff v. Berry, 40 Ark. 260, holding the State is not responsible. for acts of board of commissioners in letting contract for public printing without proper advertisement; Pickering v. Day, 3 Houst. 536, 95 Am. Dec. 308; S. C., 2 Del. Ch. 377, holding that a collector of internal revenue was not bound to discharge a deputy collector on discovery of his defalcation, and that his failure to do so did not relieve the sureties on the deputy's bond; S. C., 2 Del. Ch. 383, holding that provisions in statutes for taking official bonds are not conditions precedent to the exercise of the office unless expressed to be such; Sparks v. Farmers' Bank, 3 Del. Ch. 303, holding surety on bank cashier's bond continues as long as he holds office by virtue of his appointment, notwithstanding his annual election; State v. Smith, 16 Fla. 188, neglect of the governor to remove a collector; Mutual L. & B. Assn. v. Price, 16 Fla. 212, 26 Am. Rep. 705, failure of officers of a corporation to have periodical examinations of the treasurer's accounts; Bond v. Central Bank, 2 Ga. 108, holding certain provisions in the bank charter fixing a limit to the loans to any one person only directory; Stern v. People, 102 Ill. 550, holding failure of a county board to remove the county treasurer for refusing to make a report of his receipts did not release his sureties; Kindle v. State, 7 Blackf. 589, holding county treasurer's sureties not discharged by a change of law extending time of county treasurer for making settlements and payments; Boone Co. v. Jones, 54 Iowa, 703, 2 N. W. 990, holding that the lack of a record of the approval of a bond, as required by statute, did not affect its validity; Commonwealth v. Preston, 5 T. B. Mon. 589, neglect of County Court to compel guardian to render inventory and make settlement; Bonta v. Mercer County Court, 7 Bush (Ky.), 579, failure of the County Court to appoint a commissioner to settle sheriff's accounts; Louisiana State Bank v. Ledoux, 3 La. Ann. 685, refusal of bank to prosecute an official, and defining the sureties' duty in such cases; State v. Dunn, 11 La. Ann. 551, delay in giving a sheriff's bond until after the time required by law and failure of the auditor to require proceedings to be instituted for a former default; Bass v. State, 34 La.. Ann. 502, holding a riparian owner cannot make State liable for damages on account of a levee over which State has exclusive power

by reason of neglect of its board of engineers; Read v. Cutts, 7 Me. 193, 22 Am. Dec. 190, holding that a grantee of payment by a time fixed of a pre-existing debt was not discharged by forbearance in suing; Inhabitants of Farmington v. Stanley, 60 Me. 476, failure of selectmen to examine accounts of town treasurer; Young v. State, 7 Gill & J. 263, in general discussion of variations in bond and its attestations from prescribed forms as immaterial in affecting its validity; Milburn v. State, 1 Md. 19, in dissenting opinion, majority holding that if sureties to bond of a collector of taxes which required approval could show it had not been approved they are not bound; McShane v. Howard Bank, 73 Md. 156, 20 Atl. 780, 10 L. R. A. 557, bank failed to notify sureties of cashier's indebtedness.

Other State courts citing and applying cases are: Amherst Bank v. Root, 2 Met. 541, and Lieberman v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Atl. 384, laches of directors in examining into the affairs of the bank as required by the by-laws does not release the sureties of a bank officer; Tapley v. Martin, 116 Mass. 278, commission of previous frauds by cashier on the bank, if unknown to the officers of the bank; Murdock Grate Co. v. Commonwealth, 152 Mass. 32, 24 N. E. 856, 8 L. R. A. 402, State cannot be held liable for a tort committed by its servants; Detroit v. Weber, 26 Mich. 290, failure to observe the provisions of an ordinance requiring a monthly examination of accounts of city treasurer; Ellis v. Board, 107 Mich. 537, 65 N. W. 579, holding that the rule of nonrecovery of money paid under mistake of aw did not apply to illegal payments by ministerial officers of public money to public officers; Clements v. Anderson, 46 Miss. 598, holding that rule as to laches was confined to the government and State, and that statute of limitations ran against a county; Board of Commissioners v. Security Bank, 77 N. W. 817, holding sureties on bank's bond to county not released by failure of county to file its claim against the bank after it became insolvent; Parks v. State, 7 Mo. 196, delay in bringing suit on collector's bond for several years after default; State v. Atherton, 40 Mo. 217, negligence of directors and cashier in counting the cash; State v. Roberts, 68 Mo. 237, 30 Am. Rep. 791, holding that sureties to county collector's bond were released by a statute extending the time for his annual settlements and that doctrine of laches did not apply; Chew v. Ellingwood, 86 Mo. 273, 56 Am. Rep. 435, holding sureties of bank bookkeeper responsible for his defalcations though made with consent of the cashier and negligence of directors; Morris Canal v. Van Vorst, 21 N. J. L. 117, holding that statutory directions that agents shall account are for the security of the government, but constitute no part of the contract with the surety; Newark v. Stout, 52 N. J. L. 49, 18 Atl. 948, holding that statutes, by-laws and ordinances making it the duty of certain officers to supervise accounts were not for the benefit of sureties to an official's bond, collecting authorities; People v. Russell, 4 Wend. 575, holding omission of comptroller for eight years

to prosecute the bond of a commissioner of loans, no defense to surety; Seymour v. Van Slyck, 8 Wend. 422, holding that omission to notify indorsers of nonpayment of a note did not discharge their liability; Albany Dutch Church v. Vedder, 14 Wend. 171, failure to observe a by-law requiring treasurer of a corporation to account every six months; In re Election of Directors, 19 Wend. 143, holding that an election of directors will not be set aside because the inspectors were not sworn in the form prescribed by statute; Neimcewicz v. Gahn, 3 Paige, 619, holding where a wife mortgages her estate for benefit of her husband she is entitled to privilege of a surety, and if mortgagee takes the husband's note for interest in arrears the mortgaged property is pro tanto released; Looney v. Hughes, 26 N. Y. 519, 522, holding a statute requiring a county treasurer to issue a warrant against a delinquent town collector merely directory, and delay did not release the sureties; People v. Stephens, 71 N. Y. 560, construing certain State contracts; State Bank v. Locke and Trotter, 4 Dev. 548, holding that one who is a surety by obligation cannot avail himself of laches by the creditor, certainly at law and probably also in equity; Lee v. Sturges, 46 Ohio St. 176, 19 N. E. 571, 2 L. R. A. 564, one construction by tax officers of tax law does not estop succeeding officers from claiming a different construction.

Elsewhere in the State courts are the following, affirming and relying upon the syllabus proposition here under consideration: Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 1 Watts, 55, 26 Am. Dec. 34, holding that the lien of a judgment in favor of the State is not lost by lapse of time; Haehnlen v. Commonwealth, 13 Pa. St. 618, 53 Am. Dec. 503, holding that rights of the State cannot be lost by failure of State treasurer to deduct certain disallowed contingent expenses from salary of surveyor-general; Commonwealth v. Brice, 22 Pa. St、 214, 60 Am. Dec. 80, holding that the rule of laches applies to county as well as State officers; County v. Commonwealth, 36 Pa. St. 536, holding that a county is not relieved of its liability for State taxes because of neglect of the State treasurer in charging the county at the proper time; Pittsburg, etc., R. R. Co. v. Shaeffer, 59 Pa. St. 356, holding sureties of railway cashier's bond not discharged for failure to notify default in observing rules for three months; Commissioners v. Philadelphia County, 157 Pa. St. 547, 27 Atl. 550, affirming rule, but holding commonwealth not entitled to gain and charge interest for the delay of its officers; Commissioners v. Philadelphia, 157 Pa. St. 569, 570, 571, 573, as sustaining the ruling that if failure of the city treasurer to assess and pay over a tax was not the same as failure of the city it cannot be held liable; Erwin v. Davenport, 9 Heisk. 47, holding that, in general, railroad receivers are not responsible for the misfeasance or nonfeasance of sub-agents properly employed by them; State v. Ward, 9 Heisk. 121, holding that lessees of con

vict labor had no claim against State for loss by reason of the pardon of convicts by the governor; Strong v. Stewart, 9 Heisk. 148, holding that where by custom of the trade an agent is allowed to appoint a sub-agent, he is not responsible for acts or omissions of sub-agent, who is directly responsible to the principal for his neglect; Levasser v. Washburn, 11 Gratt. 577, holding that title by adverse possession, though commenced against the true owner, did not run against the State, to whom the land became forfeited; Conimonwealth v. Holmes, 25 Gratt. 775, 776, 778, holding that legislation subsequent to a tax collector's bond did not release the sureties, being merely directory, and that as to laws attempting to impose new duties on the principal, the bond should be heid good to the extent of the duties lawfully covered by it; Richmond, etc., R. R. Co. v. Kasey, 30 Gratt. 229, 230, holding sureties to bond of a general freight and ticket agent bound, notwithstanding he failed to settle his accounts promptly, and gave credit contrary to orders; Loving v. Auditor, 76 Va. 950, holding that a failure to certify and countersign drafts drawn by the general agent of the penitentiary did not affect the liability of sureties of the agent's bond; Crawn v. Commonwealth, 84 Va. 286, 287, 10 Am. St. Rep. 842, 843, 4 S. E. 724, holding failure to require prompt settlement of county treasurer's balances did not affect his sureties; Hoge v. Brookover, 28 W. Va. 310, in discussion of question whether a judgment in favor of the State was affected by a law requiring judgment to be docketed in order to preserve them as against purchasers of the property, no decision.

See notes to 5 Am. Dec. 281, discussing effect of delay in prosecuting an official; 45 Am. Rep. 408, as to release of sureties by legislative action; 2 Am. St. Rep. 798, on stale demand no defense against government. Cited, arguendo, in Myers v. Miller, 31 S. E. 983, holding sureties on official bond entitled to be subrogated to the position of the State; Cecil v. Clark, 44 W. Va. 676, 30 S. E. 222, arguendo, whether State is bound by estoppel.

Distinguished in Badeau v. United States, 130 U. S. 452, 32 L. 1001, 9 S. Ct. 583, holding that money paid as salary to an officer whose name has been placed on the retired list in apparent compliance with provisions of law cannot be recovered back by the United States; Boone Co. v. Burlington, etc., R. R. Co., 139 U. S. 693, 35 L. 323, 11 S. Ct. 690, holding rule did not apply to a county, collecting authorities; United States v. Beebe, 4 McCrary, 13, 17 Fed. 38, holding that in equity lapse of time may bar a suit by the government under certain circumstances; United States v. De Visser, 10 Fed. 652, holding that the effect of the warehouse act of 1861 was not directory merely, but cut off the right of the sureties to pay the debt and take possession of the goods at the end of three years; S. C., p. 659, holding that a postponement of a sale of goods under the warehouse act at the request of a purchaser by order of the secretary of the treasury, was not merely laches, but discharged