Ampel v. Seifert

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ampel v. Seifert

86 N.Y.S. 17

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided January 7, 1904·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] gested 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] gested 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.

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

Pincite

86 N.Y.S. 17 (Ampel v. Seifert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related