
    WOLF v. PEOPLE’S SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    December 22, 1909.)
    Principal and Surety (§ 123*) — Action Against Principal — Notice to Surety.
    A four days’ notice given a surety company before trial of an action brought against a person with whom the company had given a joint bond of indemnity is not an unreasonably short notice in view of the facility with which adjournments may be had in the court in which the action was tried.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Principal and Surety, Cent. Dig. § 309; Dec. Dig. § 123.*]
    Appeal .from. Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District.
    Action by Sanford Wolf against the People’s Surety Company of New York. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before GIEGERICH, GOFF, and LEHMAN, JJ.
    Edward M. Grout and Paul Grout, for appellant.
    Sidney Rossman, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

There is evidence that plaintiff gave defendant' notice of the pendency of his action against Woods, to recover damages for negligent blasting, against which both Woods and defendant had given their joint bond of indemnity, running to the city of New York. There is also evidence that the notice was given four days before trial of plaintiff’s action against Woods. This court cannot say that the notice was unreasonably short, in view of the facility with which adjournments may be had in the Municipal Court, in which that-action was tried, but must follow the ruling of the trial judge.

As to the question of defendant’s liability, in any event, upon the bond in suit, this court is bound by the decision of the Appellate Division in this department in Obendorfer v. City of New York, 130 App. Div. 877, 114 N. Y. Supp. 1139.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  