Short answer. Yes. Once a bond is filed, the filer must serve a copy on you, and you may except to its sufficiency or that of the sureties. If the applicant's bond is found insufficient and not promptly cured, the injunction is dissolved; if the adverse party's bond is insufficient and not cured, the injunction is granted or restored instead.
What the law says
The party filing a bond in accordance with the provisions of this Rule shall forthwith serve a copy of such bond on the other party, who may except to the sufficiency of the bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon. If the applicant's bond is found to be insufficient in amount, or if the surety or sureties thereon fail to justify, and a bond sufficient in amount with sufficient sureties approved after justification is not filed forthwith, the injunction shall be dissolved. If the bond of the adverse party is found to be insufficient in amount, or the surety or sureties thereon fail to justify a bond sufficient in amount with sufficient sureties approved after justification is not filed forthwith, the injunction shall be granted or restored, as the case may be.
Rule 58, Section 7 — Service of copies of bonds; effect of disapproval of same. Read the full provision →
Every bond must be served and can be challenged
Rule 58, Section 7 requires that whoever files a bond under this Rule promptly serve a copy on the other party. That other party is then given the right to except to the sufficiency of the bond itself, or to the sufficiency of the surety or sureties backing it, rather than simply having to accept the bond at face value.
Consequences when the applicant's bond fails
If the applicant's bond turns out to be insufficient in amount, or the sureties fail to justify their ability to answer for it, the applicant gets a chance to promptly file a sufficient bond with sufficient, justified sureties. If that cure does not happen, the consequence is severe: the injunction is dissolved. This gives the applicant an incentive to post a genuinely adequate bond from the start, since a bond that turns out to be too thin, or backed by sureties who cannot justify their financial capacity, does not simply get quietly ignored — it can cost the applicant the very injunctive relief the bond was supposed to secure, unless the defect is fixed right away.
The mirror-image consequence for the adverse party's bond
The same logic runs in the opposite direction. If it is the adverse party's bond — for instance, a counter-bond meant to dissolve or oppose the injunction — that turns out insufficient and is not promptly cured, the result is that the injunction is granted or restored, as the case may be. Either way, the section makes bond adequacy a live, contestable issue rather than a formality. This dual structure means both applicants and adverse parties who post counter-bonds face the same discipline: whichever side's bond turns out inadequate, and stays uncured after the other side has had the chance to object, risks losing the very protection or relief that bond was meant to secure.
Related provisions
- Rule 58, Section 7 — Service of copies of bonds; effect of disapproval of same
- Rule 58, Section 8 — Judgment to include damages against party and sureties