Mexican National Construction Co. v. Reusens — SCOTUS Brief (1885)
[Reusens SCOTUS Case (1885)] 3 No method is provided in the New York Code by which the sufficiency of the undertaking of the Fidelity Company could be presented to the Court of Appeals ; and even if there liad been any way of presenting the question to that Court, this case was removed by the plaintiff in error to the United States Cirenuit Court before sneh question could have been disposed of. Therefore, the defendant in error submits that with a money judgment of $28,062.86, he has only an undertaking in the sum of $5,000, while he is 9 under the rule entitled to full indemnity for the whole amount of his judgment. The only remedy the defendant in error now has, is by application to this Court, for he had no op- | portunity to be heard when Judge Wallace fixed the amount of the new undertaking given upon the writ of error herein. — } | Second. This 29th Rule also provides that ‘‘in all suits ‘‘ where the property in controversy necessarily ‘* follows the event of the suit, as in reg].