[Reusens SCOTUS Case (1885)] Fairly then, it may be claimed that no such case as the present was contemplated, when the rule under consideration was promulgated. Third. Even, therefore, if this Court would hold, in case a proper undertaking had been given by the plaintiff in error pursuant to section 688 of the New York Code, that it might have been considered by the Circuit Judge under the 29th rule of this Court, still as such undertaking was, as has now been de- cided by the Court of Appeals, no compliance with said section 688 of the Code, this Court should dismiss the writ of error herein, unless the plaintiff in error furnishes within a time to be fixed by this Court, indemnity for the whole ‘‘amount of the ‘judgment * * ineluding just damages for de- Jay, and costs and interest on the appeal.”’ MICHAEL H. CARDOZO, Of Counsel for Defendant in Error. Saf SEO AL eS a A OO A CI tt eek BRR eRe Nin heat A a mp reel . —~ a tm . + - _ Fuprewe Gout sa -- OCTOBER T. * : | Dersus Guiaume Raised | Affidavit and Notice of Motion to require Plaintiff 3 in error to furnish additional security, a MICHAEL H. CARDOZO, | eae of . NEW YORK: C. S. NATHAN, 55 Cedar Street. on Rs.