did not own sufficient property to secure the obligation. Id. at 831. The Austin Court of Appeals ordered a new supersedeas bond with sufficient sureties, which Carter Real Estate did not meet. Id. The Austin Court of Appeals held that the sureties remained liable, even though the court determined that their bond was insufficient to continue suspending execution of the judgment, because “the insufficient bond nevertheless accomplished ‘the very purpose for which it was intended by procuring for the principal obligor’ an abatement of the writ of execution that would otherwise have been available to Builder’s.” Id. (quoting Lloyds Cas. Insurer v. Farrar, 141 Tex. 497, 174 S.W.2d 302, 303-04 (1943)); see also Haun v. Steigleder, 868 S.W.2d 387, 391 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1993, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Because the sureties “received the full
holding that a federal district court has jurisdiction to stay an execution prior to the filing of a formal habeas corpus petition holding principal liable to third party for tort of agent despite lack of privity between principal and third party holding surety for official bond liable for interest on money lost by misappropriation unless the borough receives reimbursement for both principal and interest it will not be made whole it will suffer a loss in the face of the suretys promise that it would not recognizing obligation to read the language of the statute in light of previously established common law holding that although supersedeas bond was technically invalid because not approved by district court surety still liable on bond as common law obligation due to principal obligor obtaining stay of execution of judgment