[Reusens SCOTUS Case (1885)] | : It is obvious, therefore, that an undertaking given on an application to discharge an attachment (if excepted to, as it was in this case), requires ap- proval by a Judge, and is one ‘‘ whose sufficiency is made to depend upon the approval of a Judge,”’ and comes directly within the provisions of the first section of Chapter 486, Laws of New York, 1881, page 659, which is cited at length on page 3 of the - brief on behalf of the defendant in error ; and this law having been passed after the Code was enacted, eperates to modify or repeal the latter so far as: to enable the Judge, in his discretion in such case, to accept in lieu of two sureties, just sach an un- dertaking and guarantee as was given in this case. | : That such was the intent of the legislature is apparent from the title: ‘* An Act to facilitate the giving of bonds required by law’’; and that it is ~ universally so regarded is evident from the rule of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, adopted after the passage of said act, which rule is at length set forth on page 4 of the defendant’s brief.