[Reusens SCOTUS Case (1885)] These facts were proper for the consideration of the Circuit Judge when he determined upon the amount of the security necessary to indemnify the defendant in error on this writ; and this Court in Jerome vs. McCarter, 21 Wallace, 17, held in substance: that in the absence of fraud, the action of the Justice or Judge in accepting the 10 security within the statute and within the rules of this Court, adopted for his guidance, was final, so far as it depended on the facts existing at the time the security was accepted. This ruling was reaffirmed in Martin os. Hazard Powder Co., 98 U8. | ) Ex parte French, 100 U. S., 1. Draper os. Davis, 102 U. S., 370. Williams os. Claflin, 103 U. S., 753. Not only has the defendant in error never assailed the undertaking of the Fidelity Company in the Court below, but he has even now failed to show any change of circumstances, and he makes no claim that the bond for $5,000 is not good. | And not only has this Court held that the action ofthe Judge below is conclusive, but there is no provision of law to warrant the exercise by this Court of the extraordinary powers which it is asked to exercise in this case upon such slender showing. - Fourth.