From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clarendon v. Milliken Brothers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1907
116 App. Div. 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 1907)

Summary

In Clarendon v. Milliken Brothers, Inc. (116 App. Div. 930), the Appellate Division in the Second Department appears to have decided that the plaintiff in such case is not a non-resident within the provisions of section 3268 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but this court in McKeaggan v. Post McCord (117 App. Div. 129) intimated a contrary view.

Summary of this case from Schmaltz v. Crow Construction Co.

Opinion

January, 1907.


I agree with BARRETT, J., in Pursley v. Rodgers ( 44 App. Div. 139) that this plaintiff was not required absolutely to give security for costs under section 3268 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under section 3271 of that Code it was a matter of discretion with the court, and I think that its order should not be disturbed inasmuch as it is within the rule which we laid down in McNeil v. Merriam ( 57 App. Div. 164) and Davidson v. Bose (Id. 212), per WOODWARD, J.: "The court is not justified in extending its discretion to a case of this character, unless it is manifest that there is bad faith involved or some other serious objections to the party proceeding without the guaranty provided for by the Code." (See, too, 2 Nich, N.Y. Pr. 1891, and authorities cited.) McNeil's Case ( supra) is cited with approval in Gmaehle v. Rosenberg ( 80 App. Div. 542). The order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Woodward, Hooker, Gaynor and Rich, JJ., concurred. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.


Summaries of

Clarendon v. Milliken Brothers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1907
116 App. Div. 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 1907)

In Clarendon v. Milliken Brothers, Inc. (116 App. Div. 930), the Appellate Division in the Second Department appears to have decided that the plaintiff in such case is not a non-resident within the provisions of section 3268 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but this court in McKeaggan v. Post McCord (117 App. Div. 129) intimated a contrary view.

Summary of this case from Schmaltz v. Crow Construction Co.
Case details for

Clarendon v. Milliken Brothers, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Carrie J. Clarendon, as Administratrix, etc., of William S. Clarendon…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 1, 1907

Citations

116 App. Div. 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 1907)

Citing Cases

Slutzky v. Aron Estates Corp.

The New York decisions prior to the CPLR are in conflict on the question whether security for costs are…

Schmaltz v. Crow Construction Co.

On like facts the members of this court sitting in Pursley v. Rodgers ( 44 App. Div. 139), in opinions…