[Reusens SCOTUS Case (1885)] First. This was an action at law and the judgment is forasum of money only, viz., for $28,062.86, en- tered August 12th, 1885, Under the 29th rule of this Court, promulgated December Term, 1867 (6 Wallace, V.), the defend- ant in error was therefore entitled to indemnity upon the writ of error. “Such indemnity, where the judgment or decree ‘is for the recovery of money, not otherwise se- “cured, must be for the whole amount of the judg- ‘‘ment or decree, including ‘just damages for de- ‘** lay,’ and costs, and interest on the appeal.”’ This was the uniform practice prior to the nee: tion of the rule. see Catlett os. Brodie, 9 Wheaton, 553. Jerome vs. McCarter, 21 Wallace, 17. The judgment in this action is “for the recovery ‘of money not otherwise secured,’ [t-is true that the plaintiff in error will claim that the undertaking guaranteed by the Fidelity Com- puny, makes this Judgment ‘‘ otherwise secured.”’ This claim is not well founded, for section 688 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of New York expressly requires that when the defendant secks to discharge an attachment by giving an un- dertaking, such undertaking must be one with ‘‘aé least two sufficient sureties.