Sureties for a corporation which has suc ceeded to the rights of a party who contract ed under seal, can not avoid liability on the ground that the original contract was secur ed by fraudulent representations; Elliott v. Brady, 192 N. Y. 221, 85 N. E. 69, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 600, 127 Am. St. Rep. 898.
Any material alteration in the contract without the assent of the surety, or change in the circumstances, will discharge the surety ; even though trivial, or to the ad vantage of the surety ; Prairie State Bank v. U. S., 164 U. S. 238, 17 Sup. Ct. 142, 41 L. Ed. 412 ; 3 B. & C. 605. Such are the cases where the sureties on a bond for faithful performance are released by a change in the employment or office of the principal; 6 C. B. (N. S.) 550. But it seems that an alteration by the legislatnre in an official's duties will not discharge surety as long as they are ap propriate to his office ; People v. Vilas, 36 N. Y. 459, 93 Am. Dec. 520. If the principal and obligee change the terms of the obliga tion without the consent of the surety, the latter is discharged; Miller v. Stewart, 4 Wash. C. C. 26, Fed. Cas. No. 9,591. A change in the amounts of payments to be made un der the principal contract releases the sure ty who had no knowledge of the change and did not consent ; Mundy v. Stevens, 61 Fed. 77, 9 C. C. A. 366.
Any material alteration of the contract guaranteed, without the consent of the sure ty, discharges him ; American Bonding Co. v. Inv. Co., 150 Fed. 17 ; U. S. v. Freel, 186 U. S. 309, 22 Sup. Ct. 875, 46 L. Ed. 1177; contra, Prescott Nat. Bank v. Head, 11 Ariz 213, 90 Pac. 328, 21 Ann. Cas. 990. Where the contract provided that changes may be made in plans and specifications by written agreement of the parties, the surety is not so discharged by modifications agreed upon which are not so extensive as radically to change the contract and substitute a different one ; U. S. v. Walsh, 115 Fed. 697, 52 C. C. A.
419. Where the changes are not indorsed upon the contract as provided, the surety will be released ; Lonergan v. Trust Co., 101 Tex. 63, 104 S. W. 1061; 106 S. W. 876, 129 Am. St. Rep. 803. In Erfurth v. Steven son, 71 Ark. 199, 72 S. W. 49, it was held that a material change, consented to by the principal and the builder, discharged the surety.
If the creditor, without the assent of the surety, gives time to the principal, the sure ty is discharged ; 3 Y. & C. 187 ; 2 B. & P.' 61. So where he agrees with the principal to give time to the surety ; L. R. 7 Ch. App. 142. But not if without consideration ; Kris v. Pokrok, 46 Ill. App. 418; Gordon v. Bank, 144 U. S. 97, 12 Sup. Ct. 657, 36 L. Ed. 360 ; nor does the reducing the rate of interest on a debt and allowing it to run along after ma turity on payment of interest, without any binding contract for an extension for a def inite time ; Field v. Brokaw, 148 Ill. 654, 37 N. E. 80. And not where a creditor reserves his rights against the surety ; 16 M. & W. 128; 4 H. L. C. 997. The rule applies where a state is a creditor ; Braswell v. Gay, 75 N. C. 515.
A surety may file a bill in equity to enjoin the collection of a note where time has been given to the real principal ; Grier v. Flit craft, 57 N. J. Eq. 556, 41 At]. 425. The sure ty is usually discharged where an extension is given to the principal debtor; Fanning v. Murphy, 126 Wis. 538, 105 N. W. 1056, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 666, 110 Am. St. Rep. 946, 5 Ann. Cas. 435; but a mere extension by an attorney who is charged with the col lection of a note, will not release the surety thereon, if no security is thereby lost ; Hal] v. Presnell, 157 N. C. 290, 72 S. E. 985, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 62,, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1293 ; and an administrator has no authority to give time on a note executed by his intestate, so as to release the sureties thereon ; Daviess County Bank & T. Co. v. Wright, 129 Ky. 21,