
    James Mahon, Jr., Respondent, v. John Noon, Appellant.
    (Argued April 14, 1885;
    decided April 21, 1885.)
    This was a motion to compel the appellant to file a new undertaking, or in default thereof, that the appeal be dismissed.
    The following is the mem. of opinion.
    
      “ Assuming that Fitzsimmons, one of the sureties, was solvent when he signed the undertaking, he is now worth no property and is in the penitentiary under sentence for a felony. The other surety seems to be as good now as when he justified, but he is not a person of much financial ability and the appellant has but little or no property. If Cunningham or the appellant were possessed of ample property, we would permit the undertaking to stand as sufficient. Upon the facts as they exist the respondent is entitled to a new undertaking,-either with two new sureties or with Cunningham and a new surety.
    It is, therefore, ordered that the appellant within ten days file and serve a new undertaking on the appeal in the form and manner required by the Code, and that in default thereof the appeal be dismissed.”
    
      Patrick Keady for motion.
    
      F. J. Moyssen opposed.
   Per Curiam,

opinion as above.

All concur.

Ordered accordingly.  