, 1872-07-11

y
valid.
In the Case at the bar. tn, blank was
filled without any spec al authority from
thr srreties; ii was filled in their alb.
sence. without their knowledge or con.
sent, and without any aa:horlty whatev-
er. except such as the law wonia laaplv
from the Fact Gs their having signed the
bond with full knos ledge of the blanks,
end with the intent to become snreiies
theron.
AS Il question OF morals. the solution
would be easy. for most ceTia nly men
ought In conscience to be held liable on
their contracts in accordance with the
honest intention AMI purpose they de-
signed at the time of their exrcuti II.
But will the law warrant n iidgmt Mt
against them? The object and purpose
Of the W is to secure justice and right,
yet in many instances the law will not
enforce contracts honestly Raia by tn.
parties. although it may work hardship
Thas contracts not to be performed
within one year will not be enforced un-
less IN writ ng; promise to pay the
debt Of another will n 1t be enforce! an
'e s it ba in writing; nor will Q ,ntraci
for the sale of oods, for tie. IL, ict. of
fifty dollars. where no part OF the price
be paid, AMI no palt OF the goods be de
hvered unless the contract be in writ
ing; yet in ali these cases great incon-
veni nee and in some Instances wrong
Is permitted to b. triumphant aud with
ont remedy by The enforcement If the
rules of law. However, no lurisiiwould
be willing ~ change the rule in order to
meet II special case; for when the law is
Inct rtain 40 man knoweth when he is
aafe, and "the known certainty Of the
law is th' safety of all"
Can these sureties. then, be keld in
acco dance with the es ablished rules of
law?
IL. the case Of Wcolley ve Cons,at, 4
johnson 81, the blanks i'll the bond were
filled after the execution by the consent
of the parties. and hey were held liable.
In Knapp Us. Mal;hy. 19 Wend. 5s7,
the point decided is, that the banks
may be filed by phrol authaiity.
In the Unit-d States rs, Linn. How
ard. 104. the alteration made was this:
After the hnad was signed by the ar les
the principal added after eaah signature
L. $. without the knowledge or con-
sent of the suretIes The ircuit Con,
held the bond void as aSai' st the surety,
but the Supreme Court disposed of the
case ON II question of pleading. and did
not decide the question as the sureties'
liability.
l have examined all the cases cited by
counsel for plaintiff, as well as all 9th
ers at hand, and have not been able to
A''' "a 'iifs,ic oei7t "btltlh surely was
beld on y hopd which had been ali 10 ed
III Il material part after It had been exc
cni'd n:ier> s'ch alteration was made
with the authority of the obligor, or
with his know ledge and consent; and I
have labored earnestly so find such a
case, for the reason that I think these
sureties ought to be held in this case. if
the law will warrant me in holding
tn, In
U the other hand, in addition to the
authorities above cited, the following
ar, i"iit:
In The United States Us. Nelson and
Meyers. Brock, Ga decided by Chief
Instice Marshall. the case was this:
The d. f,ndauts executed bond as
sureiies for one Archer, as paymasier,
al the tiui" If It, execution and delivery
the amount of penalty was blank, and
W. afterwards iille'l up III the absence
OF the Gr> hes. and without their know
ledge. and without any authority. other
than Implied from their having signed
the bond with tn intention of binding
themselves as sureties of tine SAID Arch
er. Yet this bond was held void as to
the surcties. and the learned Judge says
III relatton to thar bond, that: 1.-The
def ndaDts were no more bound by the
instr ment they had executed at the
time of its execution than it the paper
had all been blank"
In the case of The eople Us. Organ
ct al. n Illincis, n, the fact, were
That Organ, as Collector, with the 9TH
er defendants as sureties. executed the
bond. leaving "a bu1 k for the penalty,
and on presenting it for approval the
bl INK was filed UP at the reqnesl of Or
gan, i'll :he absence of and without the
cons mt Of the snreties. and the Supreme
Court held the bond void as against the
sureties.
In Smith Us.the United States,2 Wall,
21O late and ably decided case, the
whole question is fully discussed by
Justice Clifford in delivering the o2ln-
ion of the Court. This Was bond of
Pine as U. 5. Marshal, with smith ct
al. as snreties. After Smith signed it
the name Of one of the sureties was
erased without the knowledge or con-