WATKIHS v. WORTHINGTON. 931

creditor could have had on the original contract, the surety will be
totally discharged; upon the ground that all such acts are against
the faith of the contract, by virtue of which the surety had pre-•
cisely the same right the creditor had, and must be allowed to take
his place in all respects; and also upon the principle that the credi-
tor is a trustee of his security, that is, of the bond, suit, execution,
&c. for all parties interested in it, or who may ultimately resort to
it for relief, (s) And so, too, if the creditor omits to do that
which the nature of his contract requires him to do, as if, being the
holder of a negotiable instrument, he fails to give notice of its
non-payment to the drawer and endorsers, they, as sureties, will be
completely discharged, (t)

The sole ground of relief to a surety, as exemplified by these
various instances at law and in equity, is, that he has, by the act
or omission of the creditor, been deprived of a legal or equitable
remedy for relieving himself, or that such remedy has been im-
paired, (u) But it is distinctly avowed, that the principles under
consideration, are not founded on any such acts or omissions of
the creditor; but simply on a presumption of the truth of certain
facts, from which mere passive negligence is inferred, and which
may be applied alike, and with equal propriety, to all contracts to
which there is, in fact, a principal and surety. And consequently,
they can derive no support from any thing to be found in this
branch of the doctrine upon the subject of principal and surety.

A creditor, however, is not bound to active diligence against
the principal debtor; the surety is a guarantee; and it is his busi-
ness to see that the principal pays, and not the creditor's; and
therefore, mere passive delay has never been held to discharge the
surety. This principle, in relation to the liability of a surety,
seems to have received the unqualified approbation, not only of
the Court of Appeals of this state; but of every other enlightened

(s) Parsons v. Briddock, 2 Vern. 608; Nisbet v. Smith, 2 Bro. C, C. 579; Rees
v. Berrington, 2 Ves. jun. 540; Wright v. Morley, 11 Ves. 22; Boultbee v. Stubbs,
18 Ves. 20; Samuell v. Howarth, 3 Meriv. 272; Robinson v. Wilson, 2 Mad. Rep.
434; Mayhew v. Crickett, 2 Swan, 190; Gould v. Robson, 8 East, 576; Clarke v.
Devlin, 3 Bos. & Pul. 363; Hill v. Bull, Gilmer, 149; Bennett u. Maule, Gikner, 305;
Ward v. Johnson, 6 Mun. 6; Hollingsworth v. Floyd, 2 H. & G. 90.—(t) Ex parte
Smith, 3 Bro. C. C. 1; Walwyn v. St. Quintin, 1 Bos. & Pul. 652; English v. Dar-
ley, 2 Bos. & Pul. 61; Lenox v. Prout, 3 Wheat. 520.— (u) Buchanan v. Bordley,
4 H. & McH. 41; Norris v. Crummey, 2 Rand. 323 j Hampton v. Levy, 1 McCord,
107; Galphin v. McKinney, 1 McCord, 280.