
    FRANCIS T. WALTON, Respondent, v. PHILIP DALY, Appellant. SAME v. SAME.
    
      One undertaking cannot be given to discharge two attachments, issued in different actions.
    
    Appeal from an order made at Special Term setting aside an undertaking given by the defendant to procure the discharge of two attachments, one of said attachments having been issued in each of the above entitled actions, on the ground that the plaintiff was entitled to a separate undertaking in each action.
    The court at General Term said : “We entertain no doubt that there is' no precedent, nor authority for accepting, as sufficient under the provisions of the Code, one undertaking in two actions for the purpose of discharging an attachment issued in each action. The undertaking is one provided by the Code, and is required to be given in each action, and to relate to each attachment. It was therefore without warrant to present an undertaking, embracing both actions and relating to both attachments, for the purpose of having the property discharged. This proposition is, we think, so plain that it is not necessary to say anything in extenso about it.”
    
      Childs (& Hull, for the appellant. J. A. 8houdy, for the respondent.
   Opinion

Per Curiam.

Present — Bbady, P. J., and Ingalls, J.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  