[Reusens SCOTUS Case (1885)] If it could, then the Act of 1881 ‘“would be applicable and would authorize the ‘Judge to give the approval; but there is no law “which declares either the approval of a judge or ‘the guaranty by a corporation, equivalent to two ‘sureties, We therefore, conclude that the un- ‘*dertaking before us, being executed only by the ‘arvpe iantand the Fidelity and Casualty Company, “with no other security, is insufficient.” Precisely this doctrine is applicable here. The undertaking required by section 688 of the New York Code, is not one whose sufficiency is made to depend upon the approval of any Judge or officer, but one executed by *S af leasé tivo sufficient ‘* sureties.”” It is apparent, therefore, that the undertaking upon which the defendant in error is forced to rely for his security is an undertaking which the Court of Appeals would itself pronounce bad if the ques- tion as to the sufficiency thereof conld be presented to it.