
    No. 7321.
    The State ex rel. A. M. Simonds vs. Judge of the Fifth Court.
    The bond for'a suspensive appeal from a judgment determining the rights of several persons to a fund, should be for more than sufficient to cover costs, when the fund is not in the custody of the court. The bond in such case is governed by the general provision for sucli bonds.
    For Mandamus and Prohibition.
    
      B. Egan for Relatríx. De Grey for Respondent.
    A purchaser at sheriff’s sale of mortgaged property had retained in his own hands $2,600 of the price, of which there were several claimants. The relatrix, whose claim upon that fund was rejected, prayed a suspensive appeal from the judgment distributing it, and insisted she was entitled to it upon a bond for costs. The judge refused it upon such bond.
   White, J.

We think the action of the lower judge was correct. Whatever may have been the right of Mrs. Simonds to an appeal from the judgment dismissing her claim upon a bond for costs, she could not upon such bond sustain the appeal from the entire judgment so as to suspend its execution between the original parties. The return of the judge to the rule shews that no money was deposited in court.

Writs refused.  