
    Simon M. Bondy et al. Respondents, v. Abraham Collier, Impleaded, Appellant.
    (City Court of New York — General Term,
    February, 1895.)
    Where the proper undertaking on an order of arrest was filed, but is defective, the court has power to allow a new undertaking to be executed and filed.
    Appeal by defendant Oollier from order-denying motion to vacate order of arrest.
    
      Davis dt Kaufmam,, for appellant.
    
      Blumenstiel dc Hwsoh, for respondents.
   Ehrlich, Ch. J.

Tlie court- below directed, that the motion to vacate the-order of arrest- be granted unless the plaintiffs executed and filed a new undertaking as provided by the Code.

The proper undertaking having been filed, and the court having power to allow the defects in the original undertaking to be amended (Code, §; 730 ; Bellinger v. Gardner, 2 Abb. Pr. 441; Irwin v. Judd, 20 Hun, 562; Beach v. Southworth, 6 Barb. 173 ; Kissam v. Marshall, 10 Abb. Pr. 424; Marvin v. Marvin, 11 Abb. [N. S.] 97), the case on appeal stands practically as if the original undertaking- had been perfect in the first instance.

The affidavit on which the order of arrest was granted sets forth a-: good cause of action for goods sold, to the defendants on the- faith of representations which afterwards proved-to be untrue. The affidavit sufficiently establishes the. fraud and. the sources of' knowledge and information clearly appear therein.

It- follows that-the order appealed from must: be affirmed, with costs.

Fitzsimons and Newburger, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.  