[Reusens SCOTUS Case (1885)] At the time when.the undertaking gu: iranteed by the Fidelity Company was given in this case, the Court of Appeals of the State of New York had not ~ tiitiVtitm@en i... * 7 decided whether, where an undertaking was re- guired to be given with two sureties, an undertak- ing guaranteed by the Fidelity Company WAS a sufficient substitute therefor. The Court of Appeals has now decided the ques- tion and has distinetly held that chapter 486 of the Laws of 1881, ‘ to facilitate the giving of bonds re- quired by law,’’ does not repeal or affect the pro- visions of the. Code of Civil Procedure in cases where two sureties are required to an undertak- ne, See Nichols os. MacLean, 98 N. Y., 458. This case was decided by the Court of Appeals March 10, 1885. The appellant therein had given an undertaking guaranteed by this same Fidelity Company as a substitute for the two sureties re- quired under section 1334 of the Code, and the Court of Appeals distinctly held that this could not be done. Section 1334 of the Code provides that each an- dertaking given as prescribed in this title must be executed by at least twe sufficient sureties. | Mr.