[Reusens SCOTUS Case (1885)] Justice Rapallo delivering the opinion of the Court of Appeals, says ‘The Code of Civil Procedure (section 1334) re- ‘quires that an undertaking on appeal to this Court be exeeuted by at least two sureties. The ‘appellant cannot himself sign as a surety. (Morss rs. Hasbrouck, 10 Abb., N. C., 407.) The Act of 1881 (chap. 486) does not repeal sec- “tion 1334. of the Code, and is not inconsistent ‘with it. That act applies only to bonds or un- ‘dertakings which are to be aceepted or approved by a head of department, Surrogate, Judge, ‘Sheriff, District Attorney, or other officer, and it inerely unthorizes any officer who is required to ‘approve any such bond or undertaking, to ac- “cept and approve the same,in his discretion, when 8 ‘its conditions are guaranteed by a duly incor- ‘porated guaranty company. : -*The undertaking.on appeal in this case Is not **one whose sufficiency is made to depend upon ‘the approval of any Judge or officer. On the “contrary, it does not even require approval (Code, sec. 1385), and the approval of a Judge ‘cannot be substituted for the two sureties re- ‘squired by Jaw.