6 GO PEDEBAL EBPOBTEE. �as involving a prolongation of his risk bcyond the period contem- plated by the implied terms of his agreemeut. �The case of De Visser, the principal in the bond, is different. It does not appear that upon his sale to Townsend, Clinch & Dike the latter personally assumed to pay the duties, or, if they did, that the officers of the government were apprised of that fact. The govern- ment, therefore, had no other principal to look to than De Visser. He was liable for the whole duties as importer, without limitation of time and irrespeetive of the goods held as security. U. S. v. Phelps, 17 Blatchf. 312, 316; Du7nont v. U. S. 98 U. S. 142, 144; U.S. y. Coiisinery, 7 Ben. 251; U. S. v. Westray, 18 Wall. 322. It does not appear, therefore, that he ever became, even in equity, a surety for any other person as principal to whom he eould look for indemnity. The postponement of the sale involved, as respects him, no increase of risk, and no defeat or postponement of any right of reconrse against another. His liability to be called on for payment might, upon suf- ficient facts proved, be postponed in equity, irrespective of the stat- ute, until a sale of the goods had been had ; but this equitable right bas been observed. The injury to him, if any, would consist solely in delay in disposing of the security; and that alone, without notice from him to sell, or damages proved, is no defenoe. �Judgment must, therefore, be rendered in favor of the defendant Turnure, and against the defendant De Visser, with costs. �As the questions involved concern the daily transactions of the gov- ernment to a large amount, I have given to the subject, in the absence of any known adjudications, the consideration which its im- portance has seemed to demand. ��� �
