In Reese v. United States (1869) 76 U.S. 13, the district attorney and defense counsel stipulated to postpone the defendant's trial for an uncertain duration, pending the final disposition of collateral civil matters. (Reese, supra, 76 U.S. at pp. 15-19.) The stipulation was made with the understanding that the defendant would leave the country until the civil matters were resolved, and the continuance was granted without the sureties' knowledge. (Id. at pp. 15-16.) The defendant then left the country and never returned. (Id. at p. 16.) The Supreme Court in Reese held that the sureties were discharged from their obligations because the stipulation changed the bond agreement, releasing the defendant from his original obligation and substituting another in its place, such that he did not have to appear until the occurrence of an uncertain and contingent event. (Reese, supra, 76 U.S. at pp. 19-21.) The court asserted, "Any change in the contract, on which they are sureties, made by the principal parties to it without their assent, discharges them, and for obvious reasons." (Id. at p. 21.) In addition, the court concluded the stipulation breached the government's implied contract not to increase the sureties' risk: "It would be against all principle and all justice to allow the government to recover against the sureties for not producing their principal, when it had itself consented to his placing himself beyond their reach and control." (Id. at p. 22, fn. omitted.)