UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

The case of the United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720, revised, its authority confirmed, and applied to the present case.

An omission of the proper officer to recall a delinquent paymaster under the injunctions of the fourth section of the Act of 24 April, 1816, ch. 69, does not discharge his surety.

The provisions requiring the delinquent paymaster to be recalled, and a new appointment to be made in his place, are merely directory and intended for the security of the government, but form no part of the contract with the surety.

The statute not removing from office the delinquent paymaster, ipso facto, but only making it the duty of the proper officer to remove him, the circumstance of new funds being placed in his hands after his delinquency, does not discharge the surety.