Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District.

This is an action brought by the District Attorney of Yolo County on behalf of the People against H. H. Hartley, one of the sureties upon the official bond of W. H. Brooks, the former Treasurer of said county. The complaint sets forth the bond, and charges that Brooks, as Treasurer, was a defaulter in the sum of $7,000, for which defendant is liable as surety. The complaint also suggests several “ defects ” in the bond, and among them the failure of Brooks to sign it, with a view to obviate them effect under the provisions of section eleven of the act entitled “An Act concerning Official Bonds,” approved February 9th, 1850.

The following is a copy of the bond:

“ Know all men by these presents that we, William H. Brooks, as principal, and H. H. Hartley, Wm. Green, O. Y. Chapman, M. Bryte, G. W. Hunt, as sureties, are held and firmly bound unto thfe People of the State of California in the several sums as hereinafter specified and affixed to our names, viz.: Henry H. Hartley in the penal sum of ten thousand dollars; Wm. Green in the penal sum of five thousand dollars; O. Y. Chapman in the penal sum of three thousand dollars; J. Y. Hoag in the penal sum of three thousand dollars; W. G. Hunt in the penal sum of five thousand dollars; William Gordon in the penal sum of five thousand dollars; - in the penal sum of-thousand dollars; -in the penal sum of-thousand dollars, for the which payment, well and truly to he made, we severally bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns firmly by these presents. Sealed with our seals and dated this twentieth day of September, 1859.

“ Whereas, at the general election, held in the county of Yolo, in September, 1859, the above bounden William H. Brooks was duly elected County Treasurer in and for the county of Yolo: How if the said William Hi Brooks shall well and faithfully discharge according to law the duties of said office of Treasurer, then this obligation to be null and void, else to remain in full force and virtue in law.

9 [L.S.] Henry H. Hartley, [L.S.] Wm. Green, [L.S.] 0. Y. Chapman, [L.B.] J. V. Hoag, [L.S.] Mike Bryte, [L.S.] W. G. Hunt, [L.S.]

Wm. Gordon, [US.]

9 [L.S.]

Indorsed with certificates of the justification of the sureties, the approval of the County Judge, and of record in the office of the County Clerk.

The following is the eleventh section of the act entitled “An Act concerning Official Bonds,” approved February 9th, 1850, to which the opinion refers:

“ Sec. 11. Whenever any such official bond shaH not contain the substantial matter, or condition or conditions required by law, or there shall be any defects in the approval or filing thereof, such bond shall not be void so as to discharge such officer and his sureties, but they shall be equitably bound to the State or party interested, and the State or such party may, by action instituted as other suits on official bonds, in any Court of competent jurisdiction, suggest the defect of such bond or such approval or filing, and recover his proper and equitable demand or damages from such officer and the person or persons who intended to become and were included as sureties in such bond.” The defendant demurred to the complaint, and the demurrer was overruled, and no answer being made, plaintiff had judgment for the amount claimed, from which defendant appeals.