Statement of the Case. 219 U.S. 1905, a judgment was entered reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court, and remanding the case, with direction to render a judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto. Thereupon an appeal to this court was allowed, where the judgment of the Hawaiian Supreme Court was reversed, for the reasons appearing in the opinion reported in 205 U. S. 340, and the case remanded to that court. Thereupon the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that the defendant Hutchins was then entitled to have a hearing upon other exceptions not passed upon at the first hearing. These were therefore heard and overruled. 18 Hawaii, 374. An appeal from that judgment was taken to this court, and dismissed, as not from a final judgment. 211 U. S. 429. Pending the review proceedings above referred to the plaintiff, upon cause shown, obtained a rule on the defendant Hutchins to give a new redelivery bond. Failing in this an execution issued to recover the property which the defendant had been directed to return, and for the damage for detention and costs. These damages, amounting to $1,050, and the taxed costs were paid and may be dropped from consideration. The sheriff returned that he was unable to obtain possession of the materials for which the action had been instituted, and therefore, returned the execution unsatisfied. Pending the review proceedings already stated this action was begun against the obligors and the executors of Henry Waterhouse, one of the sureties upon the return bond given by Hutchins as stated. Wood, the other surety, was sued but was not found. Hutchins, for reasons immaterial, was dropped out. Upon the issue joined there was a verdict and judgment against the executors of Waterhouse for $22,000, the value of the property which the obligor had failed to return as required by the judgment in the replevin suit, that being the value adjudged in that action, together with interest and costs of former 219 U. S. Argument for Plaintiff in Error. actions not paid, the whole aggregating $28,156.74, for which there was judgment. A bill of exceptions was taken from this judgment to the Supreme Court of Hawaii, which court, passing over the great majority of exceptions without ruling, sustained one which assigned error in the overruling of the motion of the defendant below for judgment non obstante veredicto. The case having been remanded for judgment pursuant to the opinion and mandate, there was a judgment, notwithstanding the verdict for the defendant. This in turn was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the Territory, and the present writ is sued out to review that judgment. Mr. Frederic D. McKenney, with whom Mr. Henry W. Prouty was on the brief, for plaintiff in error: The lower court erred in ruling that the sureties were discharged by the amendments of the complaint in the replevin suit, increasing the alleged value of the property from $15,000 to $22,000. The amendments were properly made during the course of the trial by leave of court, in order to make the pleadings correspond with the proofs, and the ad damnum as increased was within the penalty of the bond. No new cause of action was introduced by the amendments, and the liability of the sureties was not thereby increased. Section 1145, Session Laws Hawaii, 1903, 366; Revised Laws Hawaii, 1905, § 1738; Wood v. Denny, 7 Gray, 540; National Bank v. Jones, 151 Massachusetts, 454; Jamieson v. Capron, 95 Pa. St. 15; Hare v. Marsh, 61 Wisconsin, 435; Evers v. Sager, 28 Michigan, 48, 52; Merrick v. Greely, 10 Missouri, 106; Hanna v. International Petroleum Co., 23 Ohio St. 622; New Haven Bank v. Miles, 5 Connecticut, 587; Carr v. Sterling, 114 N. Y. 558; Shepard v. Pebbles, 38 Wisconsin, 373, 378; Cobbey on Replevin, § 1331; Bradford v. Frederick, 101 Pa. St. 445. To the same effect, see Hocker v. Wood's Ex'r, 33 Argument for Plaintiff in Error. 219 U. S. Pa. St. 466; Tracy v. Maloney, 105 Massachusetts, 90; Cutter v. Evans, 115 Massachusetts, 27; Knight v. Dorr, 19 Pick. 48, 51; Smith v. Mosby, 98 Indiana, 445; Schott v. Youree, 142 Illinois, 233, 243; Kennedy v. Brown, 21 Kansas, 171; Council v. Averett, 90 N. Car. 168. The condition of the bond was that the property should be delivered to said plaintiff if such delivery be adjudged, and payment to said plaintiff be well and truly made of such sum as may, for any cause, be recovered against the defendant. Mason v. Richards, 12 Iowa, 74; Richardson v. Bank, 57 Ohio St. 299, 308, 315. See also Christiansen v. Mendham, 61 N. Y. 326; Waldrop v. Wolff, 114 Georgia, 610, 620. The case at bar is clearly distinguishable from an action on a replevin bond following a judgment of dismissal of the replevin suit for want of prosecution where there is no trial on the merits. See Smith v. Mosby, 98 Indiana, 445, 448; Bridgeport Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 34 N. Y. 275, 280; Irwin v. Backus, 25 California, 214; Braiden v. Mercer, 44 Ohio St. 339; Heard v. Lodge, 20 Pick. 53, 58; 2 Brandt on Surety, 3d ed., § 563. A verdict in claim and delivery is conclusive against the sureties of the defendant in replevin. Parish v. Smith, 66 So. Car. 424; Waldrop v. Wolff, 114 Georgia, 610, 620; Stovall v. Banks, 10 Wall. 583; Richardson v. Bank, 57 Ohio St. 299; Hiriat v. Ballon, 9 Pet. 156; Washington Ice Co. v. Webster, 125 U. S. 426. The refusal or failure of the territorial Supreme Court to pass upon the remaining grounds was equivalent to the denial or rejection thereof by that court, and in the absence of exception to such denial or rejection by the party aggrieved, should stand as the final disposition thereof, not open to review by this court.. Parties to contracts have no vested right to insist that legislatures, during the pendency of said contract or the continuance of rights and liabilities thereunder shall re 219 U. S. Argument for Defendants in Error. frain from adding to or taking from statutory remedies theretofore provided for the enforcement of or defense against such rights and liabilities, if adequate remedy for such enforcement or the making of defense thereto, shall remain. Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172; Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311. Whether the suit on the return bond was brought against the executors prematurely, is solely one of local practice and procedure which the Supreme Court of the Territory, in so far as this case is concerned, has approved. Such matters of local practice and procedure in territorial courts are not open for review here. The statute of limitations commences to run as against a right of action for breach of the conditions of a replevin or delivery bond from the date of the judgment for a return of the property, which in this case was March 19, 1904 (Rec. 34); Cobbey on Replevin (2d ed.), §§ 1209, 1311, 1313, 1314 et seq; Hagan v. Lucas, 10 Pet. 40; Lovejoy v. Bright, 8 Blackf. 206; Evans v. King, 7 Missouri, 411; Lockwood v. Perry, 9 Met. 444; Burkle v. Luce, 1 Comstock (N. Y.), 163; McRea v. McLean, 3 Port. (Ala.) 138; Delay v. Yost, 59 Kansas, 496. Mr. David L. Withington, with whom Mr. William R. Castle, Mr. A. W. Greenwell and Mr. Alfred L. Castle were on the brief, for defendants in error: The sureties were discharged by the amendments increasing the valuation of the property and the recovery of judgment for the increased amount. The foundation of the ancillary proceeding in which the bond was given was an affidavit in which the plaintiff fixes the actual value, and the contract was entered into with reference to the value so fixed. Anderson v. Hapler, 34 Illinois, 436; S. C., 85 Am. Dec. 318; Bardwell v. Stubbert, 17 Nebraska, 485; S. C., 23 N. W. Rep. 344; Ah Leong v. Kee You, 8 How. 416, 418; Achi v. Alapai, 9 Hawaii, 591, Argument for Defendants in Error. 219 U.S. 592; Smith v. Fisher, 13 R. I. 624; Simpson v. Wilcox, 18 R. I. 40. This is a statutory bond, into which all existing provisions of law enter, including that under which the plaintiff fixes the actual value on which the bond is conditioned. The sureties can rely upon this statutory provision, and in order to be bound to an increased value, or by subsequent legislation, the intent of the surety to be bound must appear on the face of the bond. Sweeny v. Lomme, 22 Wall. 208; Douglass v. Douglass, 21 Wall. 98; Lee v. Hastings, 13 Nebraska, 508. The laws in force at the time and place of executing a contract, which affect the right of the parties thereto, enter into the contract and form a part of it, without any express stipulation to that effect. Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311; Von Hoffman v. Quincy, 4 Wall. 535; West River Bridge v. Dix, 6 How. 792; Walker v. Whitehead, 16 Wall. 314; Barnitz v. Beverly, 163 U. S. 118, 127. In order to bind the sureties, the bond itself must show an intent to be bound by subsequent legislation as a part of the bond itself. Miller v. Stewart, 9 Wheat. 680; United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720; United States v. Powell, 14 Wall. 493; Mix v. Vail, 86 Illinois, 40; Berwick v. Oswald, 3 El. & Bl. 653, 678. The defendants' contract is to be strictly construed, and doubts are resolved in favor of the surety. Smith v. United States, 2 Wall. 219; United States v. Price, 9 How. 84, 91; Crane v. Buckley, 203 U. S. 441, 447; United States v. Hough, 103 U. S. 72; Magee v. Life Ins. Co., 92 U. S. 93; Prairie State Nat. Bank v. United States, 164 U. S. 227; United States v. Boecker, 19 Wall. 652; Stull v. Hance, 62 Illinois, 52, 55; Supt. Pub. Works v. Richardson, 18 Hawaii, 523, 525. The surety has a right to stand upon the exact terms of his contract. The actual value fixed by the affidavit was an exact term of his contract, made so by statute. A varia |