Aсtion to recover damages against a contractor and his sureties for failure to build a schoolhouse according to contract.
Findings were filed, upon which judgment was entered against the sureties for the' penal sum of the bond. Prom the judgment they have appealed on the judgment-roll accompanied by a bill of exceptions.
The facts are in substance as follows: In October, 1902, defendant Jones entered into a written contract with plaintiff, by the terms of which Jonеs was to furnish all material and construct for plaintiff a high-school building in the town of Willows, in the said county, for the sum of $5,580, to be paid as follows: $1,860 when Jones shall have delivered all material for said building on the building-site; $1,860 when the roof is on; and the balance, $1,860, on full completion and acceptance of the building.
Plaintiff required and Jones gave' a bond in the sum of $2,500, with appellants as sureties. This bond referred to the contract, plans, and specifications, and was conditioned that Jones shоuld “do and perform all things necessary to the erection of said high-school building according to the said plans and specifications above referred to, and according to the contract of even date herewith.” In Novembеr, 1902, Jones had delivered the rough lumber and a portion of the materials on the building-site, and he then applied to plaintiff through its board of supervisors and was paid the first payment, $1,860. This payment was prematurely made without *520 the consent of aрpellants, and, at the time it was made, the materials that had been delivered on the site did not exceed in value $1,900, and the total value of the materials necessary for the construction of the building was about $5,000. The chairman of plaintiff’s board of supervisors testified that Jones came before the board and wanted the contract changed. “He asked the board if there could not be some change made wherein he would not have to place it [the material] there. My recollection is that the board agreed with him and wanted to assist him along with the work, and agreed with him that they would make a payment when the rough material was all on the ground.” After the payment Jones pocketed the money, abаndoned the contract, and left the materials upon the site unpaid for, most of which were afterwards taken and sold under attachment suits by the materialmen. Plaintiff lost the amount paid, and had to again advertise and let the contract аt an increased cost of $1,070 over the original contract.
The only question that need be discussed is: Did the premature payment made by plaintiff release the sureties?
The contract of suretyship imports entire good faith and confidence between the parties as to the whole transaction. The creditor is bound to observe good faith with the surety. He must withhold nothing, conceal nothing, release nothing which will possibly benefit the surety. He must not do any act injurious to the surety or inconsistent with his rights. He must not omit to do any act required by the surety which duty enjoins him to do, if such omission injures the surety. The liability of a surety is not to be extended by implication beyond the terms of his contract. To the extent, and in the manner, and under the circumstances pointed out in his obligation, he is bound, and no farther. He has a right to stand on its very terms. (1 Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, secs. 324-325;
Tally
v.
Parsons,
In our opinion the obligation of the principal was altered in a material respect without the consent of the sureties. The contractor was" under the obligation of placing all the materials on the building-site before he was entitled to any money under the terms of his contract. By the payment to him before he had done so, he secured the money before performing his obligation. The pressure which would have been exerted upon him to continue in the performance of his contract and place all the materials on the site, was removed when he received the money. He received it before he was entitled to it, without the consent of the sureties. The suretiеs had bound themselves upon the assumption that the plaintiff would keep its contract in good faith. We can see no difference in principle if the whole of the contract price had been paid before any of the materials were placed on the ground. In such case could any one doubt that the sureties would have been exonerated % The risk of guarantying the construction of a building to be paid for when completed and accepted, is quite diffеrent from the risk of guarantying its construction, if the whole contract price should be paid in advance. In the one case the contractor can only get the money by performing his contract, while in the other he would only pay out tiе money already received, in performing it. In this ease the sureties agreed and guaranteed that Jones would place all the materials on the building-site, on condition that he was to receive no money until he had done so; they did not agree that if paid in advance he would place such materials on the site. By the payment, the hope of reward for further performance was lost, the temptation to act dishonestly was increased.
It is said in Brandt on Suretyship and Guаranty (2d ed., vol. 2, sec. 397): “A surety for the completion of work to be performed by the principal, when, by the terms of the contract the principal is to be paid by installments, is discharged if the principal is paid faster than the contract рrovides. The surety is thereby deprived of the inducement which the-principal would have to perform the contract in due time.”
*522
The leading case, which has since been followed by the courts almost without exception, is
Calvert
v.
London Dock Co.,
2 Keene Ch. 639. Therе the contractor undertook to perform certain work, and it was agreed that three fourths of the work, as finished, should be paid for every two months, and the remaining one fourth upon the completion of the whole work. It was held that the surеties were released by reason of payments exceeding three fourths of the work done, having, without the consent of the sureties, been made to the contractor before the completion of the whole work. The opinion was delivered by Lord Langdale, the master of the rolls, in which he said: “What the company did was perhaps calculated to make it easier for Streather to complete the work, if he acted with prudence and good faith; but it alsо took away that particular sort of pressure by which the contract was intended to be applied to him. And the company instead of keeping themselves in the situation of debtors, having in their hands one fourth of the value of the work donе, became creditors to a large amount, without any security; and under the circumstances, I think that their situation with respect to Streather was so far altered, that the sureties must be considered to be discharged from their suretyship.” The leading case was followed in this country in the early case of
Taylor v. Jeter,
■ The cases of
Calvert
v.
London Dock Co.
and
Taylor
v.
Jeter
were followed and quoted with approval by this court in
Bragg
v.
Shain,
Respondent relies upon certain cases which, it claims, sustain its theory, but after a careful examination of them we are of opinion that they are either erroneous or not in point. The рrincipal one is
Hand Mfg. Co.
v.
Marks,
In the present ease the materials were never placed upon the site, nor was the money advanced used in the purchase of materials for the structure. The fund, which the plaintiff should have held as security, was given up without the consent of the sureties. There is an expression in
Meyers
v.
Wood,
The case of
Leonard
v.
County Court.
Finally, respondent contends that if the rule be applied as we have endeavored to show it should be, the sureties could only be released to the extent of the premature payment. We do not think the facts of this ease warrant the application of such rule. The contract might have been fully performed by Jones if the plaintiff had not given him money before it was due. After he had received more money than he. could possibly have made as profit by continuing his contract, the pressure that should have continued to keep him honest was entirely removed and he was left without compass or rudder to follow his own dishonest inclinations. We think it the better rule in a ease like this to hold that the sureties are entirely released. Whеre plaintiff willfully departed from its contract, and gave the contractor money not due him, and the damages occurred by reason thereof, we do not feel called upon to enter the field of conjecture as to whether or not the loss should be shared by the parties.
The judgment should be reversed.
Harrison, C., and Gray, C., concurred.
For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment is reversed. McFarland. J., Lorigan, J., Henshaw, J.