[Reusens SCOTUS Case (1885)] As to the latter part of the assertion the Court will recollect that the case was removed only after the time to 6 appeal had eapired, and that the remedy by appeal to review the determination of the Supreme Court had been lost, or waived, by the defendant in error. III.—The very objection which is here urged against the validity of this undertaking and guar- -antee, was presented. to the Supreme Court of the State of New York at the time the undertaking was offered and overruled. No steps were taken to ob- tain a review of this decision. ‘The matter involved ‘is, therefore, as between the plaintiff and the de- fendant, ** res judicata,’ and cannot now be re- opened. | IV.—But whether this undertaking satisfied the requirements of the code, -is not material in deter- mining the liability of the surety thereon in New York. . . — The fact that the property attached, was released ““‘upon the strength of this undertaking, isa suffi- cient consideration to support the undertaking,and render liable the guarantor. Post os. Doremus, 60 N. Y., 376 (1875). Goodwin vs. Bunzl, 18 Jones & Spen- cer, 441. : Dunseith os. Linke, 10 Daly, 363.