Edwards, 9 Id. 286; Lathrop v. Brittain, 30 Id. 680; People v. Love, 25 Id. 520. And the liabilities of the sureties on the different bonds relate only to the acts of the principal in the particular office for which the bond is given. People v. Gardner, 55 Id. 304. An officer reelected must give a new bond: People v. Aiken head, 5 Id. 107. Continuing liability on bond: See sec. 959, and note. The above section is mandatory: Payne v. San Francisco, 3 Cal. 125. The elected candidate must qualify within the time prescribed by law or forfeit his office: Hull v. Superior Court, 63 Cal. 174; State v. Heisey, 56 Iowa, 404. To this construction there is an exception where the predecessor refuses to deliver up the office and institutes proceedings immediately to contest the claimant's title to the office: People v. Potter, 63 Cal. 127. 948. Approval, filing, and recording bonds of state officers. SEC. 948. Unless otherwise prescribed by statute, the official bonds of state officers must be approved by the governor, and filed and recorded in the office of the secretary of state. Indorsement of approval: Sec. 952. 949. Bond of secretary of state, where filed. SEC. 949. The official bond of the secretary of state must, after it is recorded, be filed in the office of the treasurer of state. 950. Bonds of county and township officers-Approving, filing, and recording. SEC. 950. Unless otherwise prescribed by statute, the official bonds of county and township officers must be approved by the judge of the superior court, recorded in the office of the county recorder, and then filed in the county clerk's office. [Amendment, approved April 3, 1880; Amendments 1880, 20 (Ban. An ed. 109); took effect immediately.] Approval by some other officer than the one prescribed by the statute does not invalidate the bond: See note to sec. 963, post. acceptance of a bond is an approval thereof: People v. Breyfogle, 17 Cal. 93. But under section 952, in addition to the acceptance, an indorsement of the approval is required. The approving bonds is a judicial act, and where boards of aldermen are invested with this power, they exercise a judicial function when employing that power: Miller v. Sacramento, 25 Id. 93. Approval and filing both necessary: People v. Kneeland, 31 Cal. 288. And the approval must precede the filing: Sec. 953, post. When 951. Record of official bond. so approved and filed, the bond is both executed and delivered to the people of the state: Sacramento v. Bird, 31 Cal. 66. And in an action on such a bond, its production by the obligee is sufficient evidence of its delivery: Tidball v. Halley, 48 Id. 610. A bond approved condi tionally and filed will bind the parties thereto, and the clerk approving the same will not be permitted to testify that he had accepted the bond only on the condition of further payments which were never made: Ashkum v. Lake, 15 Chic. Leg. News, 207, citing Mendocino Co. v. Morris, 32 Cal. 145; Comstock v. Gage, 91 Ill. 328; Babbett v. Board of Education, 59 Id. 364; McCraskey v. Riggs, 17 Miss. 107; Jones v. State, 7 Mo. 81; Skelinger v. Yends, 12 Wend. 306; Dutton v. Kelsey, 2 Id. 615; Musselmow v. Commonwealth, 7 Pa. St. 240. The execution, approval, and filing of the bond in the office provided by law is a delivery thereof to the people: Sacramento Co. v. Bird, 31 Cal. 73. SEC. 951. Official bonds must be recorded in a book kept for that purpose, and entitled "Record of Official Bonds." 952. Approval must be indorsed on bond. SEC. 952. The approval of every official bond must be indorsed thereon and signed by the officer approving the same. 953. Bond not to be filed before approval. Sec. 953. No officer with whom any official bond is required to be filed must file such bond until approved. Duty of officer to give copies: Sec. 957. 954. Condition of bond. SEC. 954. The condition of an official bond must be that the principal will well, truly, and faithfully perform all official duties then required of him by law, and also all such additional duties as may be imposed on him by any law of the state of California. Such bond must be signed by the principal and at least two sureties. Informalities in official bonds: See sec. 963, note. 955. Justification of sureties. SEC. 955. The officer whose duty it is to approve official bonds required of state, county, or township officers, must not accept or approve any such bond, unless each of the sureties severally justify before an officer authorized to administer oaths, as follows: 1. On a bond given by a state officer, that such surety is a resident and freeholder or householder within this state; and on a bond given by a county or township officer, that such surety is a resident and freeholder or householder within such county, or within an adjoining county; 2. That such surety is worth the amount for which he becomes surety, over and above all his debts and liabilities, in unincumbered property, situated within this state, exclusive of property exempt from execution and forced sale; 3. A member of the board of supervisors shall not be accepted as surety upon the official bond of any county or township officer of his county; nor shall the sheriff, clerk, tax collector, treasurer, recorder, auditor, assessor, or district attorney of the same county become sureties upon official bonds for each other. [Amendment, approved March 30, 1874; Amendments 1873-4, 72; took effect sixtieth day after passage.] Justification of sureties: See Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1057. Following the form prescribed: See note to sec. 963, post. Must be joint and several: See sec. 958, post. Validity of bond not signed by the principal: See Mendocino Co. v. Morris, 32 Cal. 145; People v. Hartley, 21 Id. 585; Sacramento v. Dunlap, 14 Id. 421, where the distinction 956. Sureties for less than the penal sum. between joint and joint and several bonds is pointed out with respect to the effect of the absence of the principal's signature, and where a joint bond without such signature is declared invalid, but a joint and several bond held valid as to the sureties. See People v. Breyfogle, 17 Id. 504, for a construction of a joint and several bond signed by various sureties for different amounts, and by the principal. SEC. 956. When the penal sum of any bond required to be given amounts. to more than one thousand dollars, the sureties may become severally liable for portions of not less than five hundred dollars thereof, making in the aggregate at least two sureties for the whole penal sum. And if any such bond becomes forfeited, an action may be brought thereon against all or any number of the obligors, and judgment entered against them, either jointly or severally, as they may be liable. The judgment must not be entered against a surety severally bound for a greater sum than that for which he is specifically liable by the terms of the bond. Each surety is liable to contribution to his co-sureties in proportion to the amount for which he is liable. Form of judgment: People v. Edwards, 9 Cal. 286; People v. Love, 25 Id. 521; People v. Rooney, 29 Id. 643. 957. Custody of official bonds. SEC. 957. Every officer with whom official bonds are filed must carefully keep and preserve the same, and give certified copies thereof to any person demanding the same, upon being paid the same fees as are allowed by law for certified copies of papers in other cases. 958. Form of bonds. SEC. 958. All official bonds must be in form joint and several, and made payable to the state of California in such penalty and with such conditions as required by this chapter, or the law creating or regulating the duties of the office. In form joint and several: See note to sec. 963, post, upon the effect of informalities in official bonds, and sec. 955, ante, upon the distinction between joint and joint and several bonds, where the omission of the principal to 959. Construction of bonds. sign is raised. For example of a bond held to be joint and several, see People v. Love, 25 Cal. 521; and of a bond deemed to be joint, see People v. Hartley, 21 Id. 585. See sec. 956, and note, for form of judgment on official bonds. SEC. 959. Every official bond executed by any officer pursuant to law is in force and obligatory upon the principal and sureties therein for any and all, breaches of the conditions thereof committed during the time such officer continues to discharge any of the duties of or hold the office, and whether such breaches are committed or suffered by the principal officer, his deputy, or clerk. Continuing liability on bond.-The provision here that the liability of the sureties continues while the principal holds the office settles much of the difference existing in decided cases upon this question. The sureties of hold-over officers were pronounced liable in Placer Co. v. Dickerson, 45 Cal. 12. For a consideration of the varying views entertained in different states, see Brandt on Suretyship, secs. 458 et seq.; Baylies on Suretyship, 156 et seq.; 1 Dillon on Mun. Corp., 3d ed., sec. 216, note. Compare with Hubert v. Mendenheim, 64 Cal. 213, especially with reference to the binding effect of bonds of deputies continued in office on re-election of their principal. 960. Obligation as to duties required by new acts. SEC. 960. Every such bond is in force and obligatory upon the principal and sureties therein for the faithful discharge of all duties which may be required of such officer by any law enacted subsequently to the execution of such bond, and such condition must be expressed therein. Imposition of new duties.-This section, based on Stats. 1850, p. 75, sec. 8, finds its justification in the form of the official bond as required by section 954. Similar statutory provisions are to be found in other states. In Morrow v. Wood, 56 Ala. 1, Chief Justice Brickell, discussing this question in that case, says: "If the engagement of suretyship relates to a particular office, with prescribed duties, it extends only to such duties as are prescribed when the engagement is entered into, and not to such as may be subsequently attached to the office: 1 Chit. Con., 11th Am. ed., 765, note. The cases usually referred to in illustration are Bartlett v. Attorney-General, Park. 277; Bowdage v. Attorney General, Id. 488. Statutory official bonds must be read and construed, in determining the extent of their obligation and the liability the sureties thereon assume, in connection with the statutes which create the office, define its powers and duties, authorize the execution of such bonds, and appoint the conditions to which they are subject. It is competent for the legislature to prescribe 961. Suit on bonds. * that such bonds shall operate a permanent, SEC. 961. Every official bond executed by any officer pursuant to law is in force and obligatory upon the principal and sureties therein to and for the state of California, and to and for the use and benefit of all persons who may be injured or aggrieved by the wrongful act or default of such officer in his official capacity; and any person so injured or aggrieved may bring suit on such bond, in his own name, without an assignment thereof. Stats. 1850, p. 75, sec. 9. Action is properly the principal and sureties are estopped to deny brought by the county for defalcation of treas the official character of the principal obligor: urer: Sacramento Co. v. Bird, 31 Cal. 72; and People v. Jenkyns, 17 Id. 500. 962. Subsequent suits. SEC. 962. No such bond is void on the first recovery of a judgment thereon; but suit may be afterwards brought, from time to time, and judgment recov ered thereon by the state of California, or by any person to whom a right of action has accrued against such officer and his sureties, until the whole penalty of the bond is exhausted. Stats. 1850, sec. 10, p. 75. Executors' bonds: See Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1302. 963. Defects in form, approval, filing, etc., not to vitiate. Sec. 963. Whenever an official bond does not contain the substantial matter or conditions required by law, or there are any defects in the approval or filing thereof, it is not void so as to discharge such officer and his sureties; but they are equitably bound to the state or party interested; and the state or such party may, by action in any court of competent jurisdiction, suggest the defect in the bond, approval, or filing, and recover the proper and equitable demand or damages from such officer and the persons who intended to become and were included as sureties in such bond. Stats. 1850, p. 75, sec. 11. This section is not applicable where the person giving the bond, and sought to be charged as an officer, was not an officer: Quiggle v. Trumbo, 56 Cal. 626. Informalities in official bonds.-Official bonds are given for the benefit of the public against the fraud and peculations of persons in official positions; the tendency of the courts is, therefore, to disregard technical objections and to declare them invalid only on the most satisfactory grounds. The exact form prescribed is not essential unless made so by the charter or act: Hubert v. Mendenheim, 64 Cal. 213; 1 Dillon on Mun. Corp., sec. 216; Dorsey v. Smyth, 28 Cal. 21; Probate Court v. Strong, 27 Vt. 202; Place v. Taylor, 22 Ohio St. 317; Berrien Co. v. Bunbury, 45 Mich. 79; Tevis v. Randall, 6 Cal. 632. Although an official bond is not taken in the manner nor by the persons required by law to take it, yet it will be held good as a voluntary bond and bind the sureties: State v. McAlpin, 4 Ired. L. 140; State v. Perkins, 10 Id. 333. The failure of the proper officers to approve an official bond, or its approval by a different person from the one whose duty it is to approve it, will not invalidate it nor release the sureties from their liabilty: Green v. Wardwell, 17 Ill. 278; Marshall v. Hamilton, 41 Miss. 229: Jones v. State, 7 Mo. 81; People v. Johr, 22 Mich. 461; People v. Edwards, 9 Cal. 286; People v. Evans, 29 Id. 429; Mendocino Co. v. Morris, 32 Id. 145; sec. 950, and note, ante. The validity is not affected by the fact that the bond was not signed and acknowledged in the presence of a particular officer, as required by law: State v. Blair, 32 Ind. 313; nor that it was made by the deputy to his principal instead of to the state: Hubert v. Mendenheim, supra; nor by the fact that the officer had not taken the oath of office: Bonta v. Mercer Co. Court, 7 Bush, 576; Marshall v. Hamilton, 41 Miss. 229. Though no seal be affixed, yet will the bond be held valid as a common-law obligation: Board of Education v. Fonda, 77 N. Y. 350; and likewise, though no revenuestamp be attached thereto: State v. Garton, 32 Ind. 1. The absence of the principal's signature is, however, an incurable defect: People v. Hartley, 21 Cal. 585; and see Mendocino Co. v. Morris, 32 Id. 145, and sec. 955, ante; but the failure to execute the bond by one of those named therein as a surety will not release the others: Los Angeles v. Mellius, 59 Cal. 444. A bond executed before it is required, Moore v. State, 9 Mo. 330, or even after the time prescribed by the statute, is valid: State v. Rhoades, 6 Nev. 352; Monteith v. Commonwealth, 15 Gratt. 172; State v. Cooper, 53 Miss. 615. Surety signing bond with blanks for other sureties, and delivering it to the principal, who fills up the blanks, is bound: State v. Pepper, 31 Ind. 76; Webb v. Baird, 27 Id. 368; Wright Harris, 31 Iowa, 272. A bond given by one who assumed to act as a receiver, under appointinent of a court commissioner, is not informal under the above section. It is no bond at all; there was no officer to give a bond; the appointment was a nullity: Quiggle v. Trumbo, 56 Cal. 626. Suggesting defect. -The action provided for in this section is not a bill to reform the bond, so as to make it conform to the provis ions of the code. The section means that it is only necessary to suggest the defect, and thereupon, if the breach be proved, the court will be authorized to render judgment precisely as if the bond conformed to the statutory requirements: Hubert v. Mendenheim, 64 Cal. 213. 964. Insufficiency of sureties. SEC. 964. Whenever it is shown by the affidavit of a credible witness, or otherwise comes to the knowledge of the judge, court, board, officer, or other person whose duty it is to approve the official bond of any officer, that the sureties or any one of them have, since such bond was approved, died, removed from the state, become insolvent, or from any other cause have become incompetent or insufficient sureties on such bond, the judge, court, board, officer, or other person may issue a citation to such officer, requiring him, on a day therein named, not less than three nor more than ten days after date, to appear and show cause why such office should not be vacated, which citation must be served and return thereof made as in other cases. If the officer fails to appear and show good cause why such office should not be vacated, on the day named, or fails to give ample additional security, the judge, court, board, officer, or other person must make an order vacating the office, and the same must be filled as provided by law. Insolvency of some sureties does not release the others: Sacramento Co. v. Bird, 31 Cal. 66. Discharge of sureties: See secs. 970, 972 et seq; People v. Evans, 29 Cal. 429. Omission of approving officer to act upon 965. Form of additional bond. notice of incompetency of some of the sureties does not release the other sureties: People v. Scannell, 7 Cal. 432, in which the act of 1853, Stats. 1853, 223, upon which this section is based, is examined. And see People v. Jenkyns, 17 Cal. 500. SEC. 965. The additional bond must be in such penalty as directed by the court, judge, board, officer, or other person, and in all other respects similar to the original bond, and approved by and filed with the same officer as required in case of the approval and filing of the original bond. Every such additional bond so filed and approved is of like force and obligation upon the principal and sureties therein, from the time of its execution, and subjects the officer and his sureties to the same liabilities, suits, and actions as are prescribed respecting the original bonds of officers. Stats. 1850, p. 74, sec. 18. 966. Force of original bond. SEC. 966. In no case is the original bond discharged or affected when an additional bond has been given, but the same remains of like force and obligation as if such additional bond had not been given. 967. Liability of officers and sureties. SEC. 967. The officer and his sureties are liable to any party injured by the breach of any condition of an official bond, after the execution of the additional bond, upon either or both bonds, and such party may bring his action upon either bond, or he may bring separate actions on the bonds respectively, and he may allege the same cause of action, and recover judgment therefor in each suit. 968. Separate judgments on bonds. SEC. 968. If separate judgments are recovered on the bonds by such party for the same cause of action, he is entitled to have execution issued on such judgments respectively; but he must only collect, by execution or otherwise, the amount actually adjudged to him on the same causes of action in one of the suits, together with the costs of both suits. 969. Contribution between sureties. SEC. 969. Whenever the sureties on either bond have been compelled to pay any sum of money on account of the principal obligor therein, they are entitled to recover in any court of competent jurisdiction of the sureties on the remaining bond a distributive part of the sum thus paid, in the proportion which the penalties of such bonds bear one to the other and to the sums thus paid, respectively. 970. Discharge of sureties. SEO. 970. Whenever any sureties on the official bond of any officer wish to be discharged from their liability, they and such officer may procure the same to be done if such officer will execute a new bond with sufficient sureties in |