ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.—2 BLAND. 621

any accident, mistake or fraud that has happened, or may be dis-
covered. Such a contract is not within the Statute of Frauds;
and there is nothing left open tor litigation or trial before another
tribunal, or even before this Court, which cannot be fully and sat-
isfactorily inquired into and determined in the most summary way.
The form and nature of the contract, precludes controversy, and
supersedes all trial. There is, however, one, and but one question
arising out of it left open, and that is, whether or not the money
has been paid as stipulated ?

But when a sale has been made on a credit, and bonds have
been taken to secure the purchase money, it has long been the
established practice, after the day of payment has elapsed, to sue
upon the bonds; which shews, as it is said, that they alone are
looked to. and that all other modes of proceeding have been tac-
itly waived. But the bonds in such cases, are intended only as
an additional assurance. And it would be contrary to all the ana-
logies of the law to construe the taking of one security, into an
abandonment of another, where there was no incompatibility in
existence of both.

Thus it has been held, that although the statute requires the
party who sues out a commission of bankruptcy, to give bond with
surety to answer to the party who may be injured thereby, does
not deprive the party injured, of any remedy at common law, other
than upon the bond. He can, it is certain, have no more than one
satisfaction for the injury, but to obtain that, he may sue either
at common law on the special circumstances, or upon the bond.
Brown v. Chapman, 3 Burr. 1418; Ex parte Gayter, 1 Atk. 144;
Holmes v. Wainewright, 1 Swan. 23. So the importer of merchan-
dise becomes thereby, a debtor to the government for the amount
of duties imposed by the Act of Congress. But the law indulges
the importer with a credit, on his giving bond for the duties; yet
the giving or not giving of a bond, does not supersede the right of
action which accrues to the government by operation of law on the
importation. The government may sue the importer on such legal
liability, considering him as its debtor, or it may sue upon the
bond, if one has been given. *They are considered as two 656
assurances, each affording a remedy, or mode of obtaining
one satisfaction. The United States v. Lyman, 1 Mason, 482. So
also, a receiver appointed by the Conrt of Chancery, is always re-
quired to give bond, with surety, to account. But in such case,
the Court may either proceed by attachment against the receiver
alone, or upon the bond. Davies v. Cracraft, 14 Ves. 143; Mus-
grave v. Medex, 1 Meriv. 49; Utten v. Utten, I Meriv. 51.

In all these, and other like cases, the existence of the two secu-
rities, being perfectly compatible, the one with the other, it has
never been held, that the taking of one amounts to a tacit waiver
of the other. Wright v. Freeman, 5 H. & J. 475; The Mayor of