[Reusens SCOTUS Case (1885)] And this construction seems entirely in ac- cord with $579 of the Code, whereby a Judge was authorized to accept bail if the sureties jointly justified to the requisite amount. II.—The defendant in error, to farther support his claim, asserts that ‘‘ No method is provided in **the New York Code by which the sufficiency of ‘¢ the undertaking of the Fidelity Company could ‘ be presented to the Court of Appeals; and even “if there had been any way of presenting the ‘¢ question to that Court, this case was removed by ‘the plaintiff in error to the United States Circuit Court before such question could have been dis- ‘* posed of.” The first part of this assertion, we believe, can- not be sustained upon authority, for any order af- fecting a snbstantial right is appealable to the Court of Appeals (Civil Code, sect. 190, sub-divi- . sion 2); and it has been held by the Court of Ap- peals of the State of New York, in the case of Wright os. Rowland, 4: Keys, 165; 4 Abb. Ct. App., Dec., 649, that an order discharging an at- tachment affected a substantial right.