[Reusens SCOTUS Case (1885)] It is submitted that the judgment in this case being secured by the at- tachment of property, and later by the undertaking which was substituted for the property attached, does not come within that part of the rule which requires indemnity for the whole amount, but is. one of those cases wherein the rule requires indem- nity only in an amount sufficient to secure the sum recovered for the use and detention of the proper- ty and the costs of the suit, and just damages for delay, costs and interest. In actions which, like the one at bar, are brought in the Courts of a State against a corporation cre- uted under the laws of unother State, and com- menced by attachment, the property attached becomes the subject of the controversy, and the proceeding is in its nature one ‘‘in rem,’’ and when, as in this case, an undertaking is substitut- ed for the ves, ‘fa bond for the value thereof is in the custody or control of the Court ;” and we have a case within the very words of the rule. 8 But it is contended that these words should.