Furthermore, the terms of the bond itself render unavailing Liberty Mutual’s argument that its liability under the bond depends on the viability of a claim against the Trustee. Liberty Mutual’s bond makes it “jointly and severally” liable with the Trustee for her failure to faithfully perform her duties. This means that each party may be sued independently, or, in other words, that Liberty Mutual’s liability under the bond is direct rather than deriv ative. See Minor v. Mechanics’ Bank of Alexandria, 26 U.S. 46, 73, 1 Pet. 46, 7 L.Ed. 47 (1828) (under a joint and several faithful performance bond, “the plaintiff might have commenfced] suit against each of the obligors, severally, or a joint suit against them all”); Downer v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. of Md., 46 F.2d 733, 734 (3d Cir.1931) (<HOLDING>). Nothing in the bond conditions Liberty
recognizing that the gjovernment as obligee owes no equitable duty to a surety  unless the surety notifies the government that the principal has defaulted under the bond  notice by the surety is essential before any governmental duty exists recognizing forfeiture liability among criminal confederates to be joint and several holding that taxable costs included only the premium on a surety bond posted on appeal not the fees paid for letters of credit to secure the bond where the state statute and court rule only specifically allowed for premium on any surety bond recognizing that where liability is joint and several among multiple parties complete relief may be granted with respect to any one of them holding that the surety of a joint and several bond has direct liability and may be sued individually or collectively