Case Name: Travis v. Travis et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-05-14
Citations: 1 N.Y.S. 357
Docket Number: 
Parties: Travis v. Travis et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 1
Pages: 357–359

Head Matter:
Travis v. Travis et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
May 14, 1888.)
"1. Appeal—Requisites—Bond—Execution by Surety Company.
Laws 1886, c. 416, amending Code Civil Proc. § 811, provides that a bond executed by a guaranty or surety company shall be equivalent to one signed by two sureties, provided the same shall be approved by a judge of the court in which such bond is given. Hence when a plaintiff, on appeal from the supreme court to the court of appeals, without objection on the part of defendant, files a bond given by a surety company as sole surety, but without approval by a judge of the court, a motion made by defendant, 14 days afterwards, to dismiss the appeal for want of proper bond, must be granted. Pratt, J., dissenting.
■ 2. Same—Bond—Approval.
But the court will grant the appellant in such case leave to apply to a justice of the court for the approval of the bond, with the right thereafter to the respondent to except to its sufficiency.
Appeal from special term.
John Travis brought this action against Bernard Travis and Jesse Travis for a partnership accounting. Judgment was entered upon the report of a referee in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendant Bernard Travis, for §10,117.11, and in favor of the defendant Jesse Travis for §20,447.20. This judgment was reversed by the general term, Second department, and a new trial ordered, and from that decision the plaintiff and the defendant Jesse Travis appealed to the court of appeals. The notice of appeal, together with an undertaking in due form signed by two sureties, was filed, and copy served July 11th—in due time. The undertaking was excepted to, and the sureties were required to justify. The sureties did not justify at the time fixed, • and the time for justification or service of a new undertaking was extended by various orders to November 5th, when a new undertaking was served, executed by the American Surety Company alone. Section 811 of the Code • of Civil Procedure, as amended by chapter 416 of the Laws of 1886, provides that the execution of an undertaking “by one surety is sufficient, although the word ‘ sureties ’ is used, unless the provision expressly requires two or ■ more sureties; and the execution of any such bond or undertaking by any fidelity or surety company authorized by the laws of this state to transact • business shall be equivalent to the execution of said bond or undertaking ■ by two sureties, provided the same is approved by a judge of the court in which such bond or undertaking is given, and such company, if excepted - to, shall justify through its officers or attorney in the manner required by law.” Section 1334 of the Code provides that the undertaking on appeal to the court of appeals “must be executed by at least two sureties.” The • orders extending time to justify were all obtained ex parte except one. On ■ October 26th the time was extended by an ex parte order to November 29th. Upon the respondent’s motion to shorten the time thereby granted, the appellants were, by order made October 31st, given until November 5th to justify, and on the latter date the new undertaking was served. The new un- ■ dertaking was received without objection, and no exception noticed, but 14 ■ days after the respondent moved to dismiss the appeal, which motion was .granted upon the ground that the undertaking was invalid, because not approved by a judge of the court before filing. -From the order dismissing the Appeal to the court of appeals this appeal is taken by the plaintiff and the defendant Jesse Travis.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J.
Charles H. Machín, for John Travis. D. Crawford, for Jesse Travis. Martin J. Keogh, for Bernard Travis.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
An ordinary undertaking, with two sureties, need not be approved. -The respondent could except to the sureties, and if, on notice. they were found sufficient, the judge before whom the justification took place-was to indorse his allowance on the undertaking. Section 1325, Code Civil Proe. By chapter 416, Laws 1886, surety companies authorized by the law of' the state could undertake for the two sureties when two were required, "provided the same is approved by a judge of the court in which such bond or undertaking is given; and such company, if excepted to, shall justify through its officers or attorney in the manner required by law." We think it was the-design by this act to make the surety company equal to the sureties upon an apppeal to the court of appeals. It is true that the act only purports to amend, section 811, and to be limited to those cases where an approval is needed by the judge. There is great doubt on the question whether the amendment covers an appeal to the court of appeals, but, if it does, then the approval-must be indorsed on the undertaking before it is filed, and without this the undertaking is entirely null. The act of 1886 only makes the company equal to two sureties when it is approved by the judge. This approval is entirely separate and distinct from the certificate given to the sufficiency of sureties, on exception to them. The surety company also justify, if excepted to.
The order should be therefore affirmed, with costs and disbursements. But' it is not right that the appeal should be lost. Leave is therefore given for-the appellant to apply to a justice of the court for the approval of the bond,, with the right thereafter to respondent to except in the usual way.