UNITED STATES V. CAMPBELL. 817 �Bbown, D. J. The defendant is sued as a surety upou a ware- house bond, executed August 19, 1872, by F. W. Wagner, upon the importation of three cases of optical instruments. The bond reeited the importation of the goods by Wagner, the principal, and the entry of the goods for warehousing under the laws of the United States ; and the condition was, among other things, "that if, within one year from the date of said original importation, the said goods, wares, and merchandise shall be regularly and lawfully withdrawn from public store or bonded warehouse, on paymeut of the legal duties and charges to which they shall then be subject, or within three years, on payment of duties and charges, with 10 per cent, additional, etc., then the above obligation to be void." The duties were liquidated at $310.20 on September 30, 1872. . The goods were entered for withdrawal in three portions, — a part on September 10, a part on September 17, and the residue on September 28, 1872. Upon the first two with- drawals before liquidation duties were paid in excess of the whole amount as afterwards liquidated, so that on the last withdrawal no duties appeared to be due, and the residue of the goods was deliv- ered on the basis of that liquidation without any further payment, the withdrawal entry being marked "overpaid." �On March 8, 1880, more than seven years afterwards, an error of nearly $400 was discovered in the liquidation of September 30, 1872. A "reliquidation" was, therefore, made, and this suit is now brought against the surety only, to recover upon his bond the deficiency as ascertained according to the reliquidation of 1880, �The defendant claims that his obligation was discharged by the payment of the duty in f ull, as liquidated, within the period prescribed by the bond, and by the regular withdrawal and delivery of the goods upon the faith of that liquidation; and also that under the act of June 22, 1874, (1 Supp. to Eev. St. p. 81, § 21,) no reliquidation of this entry oould be made more than one year after the passage of that act. �The error in the liquidation of 1872 was of such a nature as to have been easily discovered upon a scrutiny of the entry and of the com- putation made upon it. But it does not appear that the surety in the bond, who is alone sued in this action, had anything to do with the liquidation, or that he is chargeable with any knowledge of the error, or of the nature or cause of it. As regards him, therefore, the case must be determined upon the general authority of the collector to make a reliquidation which shall be binding upon a surety after the v,10,no.8— 52 ��� �
