
    PETER HAULENBECK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM S. B. HEACOCK, Impleaded, &c., Appellant.
    Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Freedman, J.
    
      Decided April 4, 1881.
    
      Receiver—security of, discretion of court as to.
    
    Appeal from order denying defendant’s motion to compel the receiver in the action to substitute a new bondsman in the place of one who had become insolvent.
    The court, at General Term, said: “The receiver appointed in this action, which is for a dissolution of partnership, before entering upon his duties,' duly gave a bond in the penalty of $12,000, with two sureties who were approved .as good and sufficient. When thereafter, one of these sureties became insolvent, it rested in the sound discretion of the court whether new security should or should not be required. The application for new security rested solely upon the fact of the insolvency of one of the sureties. The receiver, on the other hand, showed that the value of the property which came into his hands amounts to only $500, and that the remaining surety is worth $75,000. Under these circumstances the discretion of the court was well exercised in denying the application.”
    
      Armstrong & Briggs, for appellant.
   Opinion by Freedman, J.; Sedgwick, Ch. J., concurred.

Order affirmed, with costs.  