Ampel v. Seifert

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ampel v. Seifert

86 N.Y.S. 17

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 7, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 N.Y.S. 17 (Ampel v. Seifert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ampel v. Seifert, 86 N.Y.S. 17 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is well settled that an application for security for costs must be made before answer as a matter of right, or, after answer, appealing to the court’s discretion, must be made promptly after the discovery of facts, which satisfactorily explains why it was not made before answer. Segal v. Cauldwell, 22 App. Div. 95, 47 N. Y. Supp. 839; Henderson v. McNally, 33 App. Div. 132, 53 N. Y. Supp. 351. Assuming that the defendants did not discover plaintiff’s nonresidence until the trial on March 16, 1903, no excuse is even sug[18]*18gested for delaying the application for security until the middle of Sep- • tember, 1903.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements,- and motion granted, with $10 costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

It is well settled that an application for security for costs must be made before answer as a matter of right, or, after answer, appealing to the court’s discretion, must be made promptly after the discovery of facts, which satisfactorily explains why it was not made before answer. Segal v. Cauldwell, 22 App. Div. 95, 47 N. Y. Supp. 839; Henderson v. McNally, 33 App. Div. 132, 53 N. Y. Supp. 351. Assuming that the defendants did not discover plaintiff’s nonresidence until the trial on March 16, 1903, no excuse is even sug[18]*18gested for delaying the application for security until the middle of Sep- • tember, 1903.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements,- and motion granted, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.Y.S. 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ampel-v-seifert-nyappterm-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack