[Reusens SCOTUS Case (1885)] be construed to apply only to cases where the bond had been given for the value of property in the custody or control of the United States Circuit Court, and further only to such of these cases wherein the bond had been given to release prop- erty or proe oem Cr property seized under admir- alty process. We contend for a broader and more equitable construction, The principle of the rule, is that a litigant shall not be compelled to give double security, and we can see no reason why it does not apply with— equal foree to actions at law, as well as’ to admir- wlty cases, to cases removed to the Cirenuit Court as well as to cases brought there by original pro- cess or appeal. : The language of the rule is broad enough to cover them all, and we contend ‘for our construe- tion with the more confidence, as on the revision of the rules in 1884,after the passage of the act of Con- eress of June Ist, 1872, 17 U. S. Star. p. 196, and of the act of Mareh 8rd, 1875, 18 U.S. Stat., p. 470, this rule was readopted without change. It would seem that any different construction is repugnant to the Act of Congress of March 3d, 1875.