[Reusens SCOTUS Case (1885)] And it may be enforced as an agreement between a oe the parties. oe : Toles os. Adee, 84 N. Y., 222 (1881). Very clearly therefore the judgment in the Court below, was in the true and obvious sense of rule 29, * otherwise secured’ tothe extent of the undertak- ing given on the discharge of the attachment, and when the Court below, in the proper exercise of its discretion required as a condition of granting the supersedeas the additional bond of $5,000, it fully satistied the requirements of that rule, and gave to 7 the defendant in error all the indemnity to which it entitled him. Second. It was held by the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, that an.attachment issued under the Code isto meet the ultimate recovery in the action, not merely the first judgment. Wright os. Row- land, supra. The undertaking took the place of the property attached, the claim in controversy was therefore secured, and when it ripened into a judgment the satisfaction of that judgment was secured. The 29th Rule provides that in all cases of judg- ments for the recovery of money. ** not otherwise secured, the indemnity must be for the whole amount, interest, costs.’’ &c.