munity at large or those which create relations between the public corporation which the official represents and that officer, there can be no recovery by the individual for a failure to perform the duties in such a manner as to be regarded a breach of the obligation of the bond; 184 but if, on the other hand, the duties are personal in their nature and the proper, honest and diligent performance of which the official owes to the individual rather than the community at large, there may arise a liability on the part of the officer and a cause of action in favor of one who considers himself aggrieved by their misperformance.185 What constitutes a breach of the obligation of an official bond is to be determined by its tenor.186 Public acts of the official alone are to be considered and 184 Orton v. City of Lincoln, 156 Ill. 499, 41 N. E. 159, reversing 56 Ill. App. 79; Paxton v. Baum, 59 Miss. 531. The right of action may be given to any taxpayer by statute for the misperformance of public duties. State v. Dent, 121 Mo. 162, 25 S. W. 924; Bantley v. Baker, 61 Neb. 92, 84 N. W. 603; Borough of Rutherford v. Alyea, 53 N. J. Eq. 580; Joyner v. Roberts, 112 N. C. 111, 16 S. E. 917. A private person, however, may sue to recover a penalty prescribed by law for the failure to discharge an official duty where it comes within the words "the party injured" as used in N. C. Code, §§ 1883, 1891. Kidd v. Reynolds, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 355, 50 S. W. 600. The institution of a malicious prosecution by the town marshal being outside the scope of his official duties does not render the sureties on his official bond liable. Blanton v. Com., 91 Va. 1; Marquis v. Willard, 12 Wash. 528; Town of Cady v. Bailey, 95 Wis. 370, 70 N. W. 285. 185 Alexander v. Ison, 107 Ga. 745, 33 S. E. 657; Levin v. Robie, 5 Misc. 529, 25 N. Y. Supp. 982; Moretz v. Ray, 75 N. C. 170; State v. Grizzard, 117 N. C. 105, 23 S. E. 93; Drolesbaugh v. Hill, 64 Ohio St. 257, 60 N. E. 202; Stephenson v. Sinclair, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 133, 36 S. W. 137; Beale's v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 299. But see McConnell v. Simpson, 36 Fed. 750. 186 United States v. Wann, 3 McLean, 179, Fed. Cas. No. 16,638; United States v. McClane, 74 Fed. 153. The failure of an Indian agent to file a receipt for moneys actually disbursed by him will not render his bondsmen liable for such amount. They cannot be held liable for mistakes of fact or law, errors of judgment or misconstruction of authority in disbursing money in good faith for the benefit of the government. National Bank of Redemption v. Rutledge, 84 Fed. 400; Chandler v. Rutherford, 101 Fed. 774. It is the prevailing doctrine that no liability is imposed on the sureties on an official bond when the officer assumes to act in an official capacity without any authority what ever. Priet v. De La Montanya, 85 Cal. 148, 24 Pac. 612; People v. Myers, 16 Colo. App. 371, 65 Pac. 409; City of Brunswick v. Harvey, 114 Ga. 733, 40 S. E. 754; Whitlow v. Trus neglect or dishonesty in the performance of duties or in the collection of moneys not authorized or required by law will afford no right of action either in favor of an individual or a public corporation.18 187 tees of Schools, 93 Ill. App. 664, The failure to make a complete and accurate statement will not discharge sureties on an official bond. Vigo Tp. v. Knox County Com'rs, 111 Ind. 170, 12 N. E. 305; Armington v. State, 45 Ind. 10; Shelton v. State, 53 Ind. 331. The retention of moneys collected as interest on public funds where the same are not required to be turned over to the county is not a breach of an official bond. State v. Hauser, 63 Ind. 155; Morgan v. Long, 29 Iowa, 434; Madison County v. Tullis, 69 Iowa, 720; Allen v. State, 6 Kan. 915, 51 Pac. 572; State v. Hill, 88 Md. 111, 41 Atl. 61; Stevenson v. Bay City, 20 Mich. 44; People v. Wright, 34 Mich. 371; Swift County Com'rs v. Knudson, 71 Minn. 461, 74 N. W. 158; St. Louis County Com'rs v. Security Bank of Duluth, 75 Minn. 174, 77 N. W. 815; Board of Education of Preston Independent School Dist. No. 45 v. Robinson, 81 Minn. 305, 84 N. W. 105; Montgomery County v. Auchley, 103 Mo. 492, 15 S. W. 626; State v. Hall, 68 Miss. 719, 10 So. 54; City of Great Falls v. Hanks, 21 Mont. 83, 52 Pac. 785; Kane v. Union Pac. R. Co., 5 Neb. 105. The exaction of illegal fees is a breach of an official bond. Perkins County v. Miller, 55 Neb. 141; Kruttschnitt v. Hauck, 6 Nev. 163; State v. Rhoades, 7 Nev. 434. Special deposits as provided by Nevada Statutes, 1867, p. 166, § 5, are received by the state treasurer in his official capacity, and the sure ties on his official bond are liable as for other moneys. Henniker v. Wyman, 58 N. H. 528. The giving of a note by an outgoing town treasurer although accepted by his successor with the assent of the selectmen does not discharge the obligation of his of ficial bond. Prince v. McNeill, 77 N. C. 398; City of Wilkes Barre v. Rockafellow, 171 Pa. 177, 33 Atl. 269, 30 L. R. A. 393. The failure to pay interest on bank balances composed of public funds is not a breach of the obligation of an official bond where such interest is not made by law a part of the public funds. Custer County v. Tunley, 13 S. D. 7, 82 N. W. 84; Anderson County v. Hays, 99 Tenn. 542; Henderson County v. Richardson, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 699; Kempner v. Galveston County, 73 Tex. 216, 11 S. W. 188. 187 City of San Jose v. Welch, 65 Cal. 358; San Luis Obispo County v. Farnum, 108 Cal. 562; Mason v. Com'rs of Roads and Rev. enues, 104 Ga. 35, 30 S. E. 513; Ada County v. Ellis, 5 Idaho, 333, 48 Pac. 1071. The sureties on an of ficial bond are not liable for moneys received by a public official after his term of office has expired. People v. Toomey, 122 Ill. 308, affirming 25 Ill. App. 46; State v. Givan, 45 Ind. 267; Helms v. State, 19 Ind. 360, 48 N. E. 264; Wood v. State, 155 Ind. 1, 55 N. E. 959; Lower v. Morris County Com'rs, 62 Kan. 295, 62 Pac. 1009; Lowe v. City of Guthrie, 4 Okl. 287, 44 Pac. 198; Hutchinson v. Com., 6 Pa. 124; $628. Parties. An action upon an official bond against the principal and sureties should be brought by that party in whose favor the obligation of the bond runs, although in some cases the form may not be as required by law.188 Where a default in the obligation exists, especially in respect to the wrongful retention or use of public moneys, a demand is not usually necessary before the right of action exists.189 Henderson County v. Richardson, 15 Tex. 699, 40 S. W. 38. Rowlett v. White, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 688, 46 S. W. 372. The sureties on the official bond of one whose right to an office has been successfully contested are not liable to the contestant for the salary and fees received by the principal. But see Cheboygan County v. Erratt, 110 Mich. 156, 67 N. W. 1117; State v. McDaniel, 78 Miss. 1, 27 So. 994, 50 L. R. A. 118. Sureties on an official bond are liable for acts of the officials done colore officii and in the line of their official duties though they may be illegal because beyond their authority. Blaco v. State, 58 Neb. 557, 78 N. W. 1056; Feigert v. State, 31 Ohio St. 432. An official and his sureties are liable for taxes collected though the rate of taxation exceeds that allowed by law. 188 Jackson County V. Derrick, 117 Ala. 348, 23 So. 193; Dallas County v. Timberlake, 54 Ala. 403; Butte County v. Morgan, 76 Cal. 1; Sonoma County v. Stofen, 125 Cal. 32; Cooper v. People, 28 Colo. 87, 63 Pac. 314; Stutsman County v. Mansfield, 5 Dak. 78; City of Or 189 Foster v. State, 22 Ind. App. 471, 53 N. E. 1095; Inhabitants of Egremont v. Benjamin, 125 Mass. 15; Carver County Com'rs v. Bongard, 82 Minn. 431, 85 N. W. 214; lando v. Gooding, 34 Fla. 244; State v. Wilson, 113 Ind. 501, 15 N. E. 596; Hollingsworth v. Knox County Com'rs, 22 Ind. App. 232; Hawthorn v. State, 48 Ind. 464; State v. Henderson, 40 Iowa, 242; Jackson County Com'rs v. Craft, 6 Kan. 145; Com. v. Tate, 89 Ky. 587, 13 S. W. 113; Hardy v. Logan County Court, 15 Ky. L. R. 405, 23 S. W. 661; Com. v. Tilton, 21 Ky. L. R. 1079, 54 S. W. 11; Mower County Com'rs v. Smith, 22 Minn. 97; Waseca County v. Sheehan, 42 Minn. 57, 43 N. W. 690, 5 L. R. A. 785; State v. Bonner, 5 Mo. App. 13; Cole County v. Schmidt (Mo.) 10 S. W. 888; Salem Tp. v. Cunningham, 45 Mo. App. 614; State v. Sappington, 68 Mo. 454; Lafayette County v. Hixon, 69 Mo. 581; Clark County v. Hayman, 142 Mo. 430, 44 S. W. 257; State v. Baker, 47 Miss. 89; Albertson v. State, 9 Neb. 429; Valley County v. Robinson, 32 Neb. 254, 49 N. W. 356; Hrabak v. Village of Dodge, 62 Neb. 591, 87 N. W. 358; County of White Pine v. Herrick, 19 Nev. 34; Town of Warrenton v. Arrington, 101 N. C. 109, 7 S. E. 652; State v. Roberts, 108 N. C. 174; Jones v. Lucas County Com'rs, (Tex.) 40 S. W. 235; Coe v. Nash Joint School 27 Wis. 506. Gill, 15 Ind. 1115, 43 N. E. 1016. § 629. Termination of official life. Whatever relations may exist between a public official and the public corporation which he serves, or the public, are terminated by the expiration of his right to serve in an official capacity which is generally effected by the expiration of his term of office, where this is certain and fixed, or his removal when he holds at the pleasure of an appointing power and also by voluntary action on his part. Official life may be terminated from the standpoint of the official by his action voluntarily or involuntarily; the former would include a resignation, an abandonment of office or the acceptance of an incompatible office while the latter would include the expiration of an official term, legislative action with reference to the office, impeachment and removal. These questions will be considered somewhat briefly in succeeding sections. § 630. Official life terminated by legislative action. It is the settled doctrine in the United States that a public office contains nothing of the nature of a grant or of a contract, and in the absence of constitutional restrictions or where the office is not 57 Ohio St. 189; Hume v. Kelly, 28 Or. 398, 43 Pac. 380; State v. Welbes, 11 S. D. 86; Custer County v. Albien, 7 S. D. 482; 64 N. W. 533; State v. Barnes, 10 S. D. 306, 73 N. W. 80; Bedwell v. Jones, 77 Tenn. (9 Lea) 168; Burk v. Galveston County, 76 Tex. 267, 13 a constitutional one,190 the legislature or a legislative body acting within its authority has the power to deal with public offices absolutely and without restraint in respect to their creation or abolition.191 This rule applies to all grades of public officials, whether state or municipal, under the conditions suggested.192 190 Fitch v. City & County of San Francisco Sup'rs, 122 Cal. 285, 54 Pac. 901; Becker v. People, 156 Ill. 301, 40 N. E. 944, affirming 55 Ill. App. 285; Kimberlin v. State, 130 Ind. 120, 29 N. E. 773, 14 L. R. A. 858; Indianapolis Brewing Co. v. Claypool, 149 Ind. 193, 48 Ind. 228. An act is unconstitutional that violates Indiana Const. art. 15, § 2, which prohibits the general assembly from creating office the tenure of which shall be longer than four years. Sneath v. Mager, 64 N. J. Law, 94, 44 Atl. 983; State v. Stewart, 52 Neb. 243; Canfield v. Davies, 61 N. J. Law, 26, 39 Atl. 357. Pub. Laws 1891, p. 471, relative to the terms of office of city clerks and collectors are unconstitutional, being repugnant to amended Const. art. 4, § 7, par. 11, subd. 3, prohibiting the passage of special laws regulating the internal affairs of towns. Jarvis v. Waterbury, 84 Hun, 462, 32 N. Y. Supp. 389; People v. Bull, 46 N. Y. 57; In re Burger, 21 Misc. 370, 47 N. Y. Supp. 292; People v. Randall, 151 N. Y. 479, 45 N. E. 841; People v. Palmer, 154 N. Y. 133, 47 N. E. 1084, affirming 21 App. Div. 101, 47 N. Y. Supp. 403; Bryan v. Patrick, 124 N. C. 651, 33 S. E. 151; Lewis v. Lewelling, 53 Kan. 201, 36 Pac. 351, 23 L. R. A. 510; State v. Compson, 34 Or. 25, 54 Pac. 349; State v. Kipp, 10 S. D. 495; State v. Catlin, 84 Tex. 48, 19 S. W. 302; Wright v. Adams, 45 Tex. 134. Where a constitutional provision respecting the term or dur ation of an elective office is of doubtful or uncertain meaning, that construction should be placed upon it which limits the office to the shortest time. See, also, as holding the same, Smith v. Bryan, 100 Va. 199, 40 S. E. 652; Kimbrough v. Barnett, 93 Tex. 301, 55 S. W. 120; State v. Cheetham, 19 Wash. 330; Reals v. Smith, 8 Wyo. 159, 56 Pac. 690. See, also, §§ 596, 597, ante. 191 Kimberlin v. State, 130 Ind. 120, 29 N. E. 773, 14 L. R. A. 858; In re Assessment for Construction of Sewer in City of Passaic, 54 N. J. Law, 156, 23 Atl. 517; Abrams v. Horton, 18 App. Div. 208, 45 N. Y. Supp. 887. The keeper of an almshouse not a constitutional officer. David v. City of Portland, 14 Or. 98, 12 Pac. 174; Stanfield v. State, 83 Tex. 317, 18 S. W. 577; McMurray v. Hollis, 5 Wash. 458. The length of term or time of its commencement when established by the legislature may be repealed by the adoption of a constitutional provision providing otherwise. 192 State v. Chatfield, 71 Conn. 104, 40 Atl. 922; Heath v. Salt Lake City, 16 Utah, 374, 52 Pac. 602; McGrath v. City of Chicago, 24 Ill. App. 19. The reorganization of a city under a general corporation law determines the tenure of all municipal officers. People v. Palmer, 64 Ill. 41; People v. Blair, 82 Ill. App. 570; Goodwin v. State, 142 Ind. 117, 41 N. E. 359; Campbell County v. Trapp, 23 Ky. L. R. 2356, 67 S. W. 369; People v. Coler, 71 |