Nathan Clifford

“ Cromwell, [17] is always strictissimi juris, and cannot be extended by construction; and this court, in the case of Leggett et al. v. Humphrey, [18] adopted the same rule, and explicitly decided that a surety can never be bound beyond the scope of his engagement. [19]
Argument is unnecessary to show that a variation of the contract was made in this case, because it is admitted, and it is equally certain, that the person whose name was erased is fully discharged, and, consequently, that the plaintiffs cannot declare upon the original obligation as it stood before the alteration was made. ”

“ Sureties must be permitted to remain in precisely the situation they have placed themselves; and it is no justification or excuse with another for attempting to change their situation to allege or show that they would be benefited by such change. ”

“ Every material alteration of a written instrument, according to the old decisions, whether made by a party or by a stranger, was fatal to its validity if made after execution, and while the instrument was in the possession and under the control of the party seeking to enforce it, and without the privity of the party to be affected by the alteration. ”

“ General rule is, that where any suspicion is raised as to the genuineness of an altered instrument, whether it be apparent upon inspection, or is made so by extraneous evidence, the party producing the instrument and claiming under it, is bound to remove the suspicion by accounting for the alteration. ”

“ United States
This case comes before the court upon a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. Suit was instituted by the United States, and the record shows that it was an action of debt on the official bond of Charles N. Pine, late marshal of the United States for the district where the suit was brought. Service was not made on the principal in the bond, nor on four of the sureties as named in the declaration. ”