The principle of this case is identical with that of Hoell v. Cobb, 4 Jones, 258, and the decision must be the same. The only difference in the facts of the two cases is, that in the former, it was stated, in the official bond ©f the constable, as well as in the record of his appointment, that he was chosen for one year. In the present case, it appears upon the record, that he was appointed for one year, though the bond does not recite the duration of his office. But it was proved that he continued to act under color of his office- during the year, and that is sufficient to render him and Ms sureties liable by force of the 9-th section of the 78th chapter of the Bevised Code. The policy of that law is to render the-sureties of a constable liable for his official delinquencies, rather than to permit those who may have put claims into his-hands for collection to suffer loss, though he may be acting under an irregular or invalid appointment.

Per Curiam, Judgment affirmed.