Belford v. Faulk & Co.

New York Supreme Court

Belford v. Faulk & Co.

169 Misc. 132, 7 N.Y.S.2d 122

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 13, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 Misc. 132 (Belford v. Faulk & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Belford v. Faulk & Co., 169 Misc. 132, 7 N.Y.S.2d 122 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Hallinan, J.

After trial of this action for an accounting in a partnership, an interlocutory judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, and referring the matter of the account to an official referee. Now, upon the eve of the hearings of such accounting, the defendant makes this application.

I am of opinion that the plaintiff, having prevailed upon the trial, it is now too late for the defendant to apply for this relief, even though a notice of appeal from the interlocutory judgment has been filed. The court is mindful of the language of section 1524 of the Civil Practice Act and of such decisions as Snyder v. Griswold (140 Misc. 82) and Hungarian General Credit-Bank v. Titus (175 App. Div. 507), but the rule that an application requiring plaintiff to give security for costs may be made at any stage of an action could not have been intended to apply to a situation where the party required to furnish security for costs has, as here, prevailed after trial. Motion denied.

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

Hallinan, J.

After trial of this action for an accounting in a partnership, an interlocutory judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, and referring the matter of the account to an official referee. Now, upon the eve of the hearings of such accounting, the defendant makes this application.

I am of opinion that the plaintiff, having prevailed upon the trial, it is now too late for the defendant to apply for this relief, even though a notice of appeal from the interlocutory judgment has been filed. The court is mindful of the language of section 1524 of the Civil Practice Act and of such decisions as Snyder v. Griswold (140 Misc. 82) and Hungarian General Credit-Bank v. Titus (175 App. Div. 507), but the rule that an application requiring plaintiff to give security for costs may be made at any stage of an action could not have been intended to apply to a situation where the party required to furnish security for costs has, as here, prevailed after trial. Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 Misc. 132, 7 N.Y.S.2d 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belford-v-faulk-co-nysupct-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack