Case ID: how-pr_57/html/0170-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lawrence, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUPREME COURT.
    Cornelius H. Delamater et al., respondents, agt. Patrick H. Byrne, appellant.
    
      Vhdeo'taMng on appeal—Sufficiency of sureties in the discretion of judge — Code of Civil Procedure, sections 1334, 1351, 1327, 811.
    The sufficiency of sureties on appeal is purely within the discretion of the judge to whom the undertaking is submitted for approval.
    The ordinary course of practice is to require two sureties.
    
      Special Term, April, 1879.
    In this case an appeal was taken from two certain orders, made by Mr. justice Barrett, wherein he directed a stay upon giving proper security.
    
      The appellant filed an undertaking in the sum of $2,000 with one surety. The respondent excepted to the sufficiency of the undertaking on the ground that sections 1334 and 1351 of the Code of Civil Procedure require “ at least two sureties ” upon all undertakings given on appeal.
    The appellant claimed that under sections 1327 and 811, one surety was all that was required, if he justified in double the amount claimed:
    
      JJ. A. Halbert, for respondent.
    
      Ohas. G. Oronim, for appellant.
   Lawrence, J.

If it be conceded that, under section 1327 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an undertaking with one surety may be received as sufficient, the matter is purely within the discretion of the justice to whom the undertaking is submitted for approval; and I, therefore, deem it sufficient to say, that in this case, I see no reason for departing from the ordinary course of practice, which requires two sureties. The undertaking must, therefore, be rejected.