Glover v. Cuming

12 Wend. 295
New York Supreme Court·Decided March 19, 1835·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[296]*296 By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

I consider the practice of the defendant in this case entirely regular, and am satisfied that judgments of non-pros have frequently been granted on similar applications, although no cases are found reported. Cases, however, are reported where such judgments have been granted for the omission of a plaintiff to deliver a bill of particulars, and the proceedings in these cases are deemed strictly analogous ; in neither case can the plaintiff proceed in his suit until he has complied with the order of the court. Besides, no reason is perceived why a defendant, after tying up his adversary, should be compelled to incur the expense of any proceedings,besides those absolutely necessary to put the plaintiff out of court by a direct motion for that purpose. On receiving notice of the motion for judgment of non-pros, the plaintiff may still comply with the order to file security for costs, on paying the costs of the motion; or if cause can be shown for enlarging the time to file security, no doubt time will be extended for that purpose. The defendant, therefore, is entitled to his motion; but as the practice does not appear to have been settled, it is granted conditionally, unless the plaintiff within 20 days file security for costs ; and no costs of this motion are allowed. Whatever doubt may have been entertained heretofore, none will exist hereafter, as to the practice in a case like this, as the practice of the defendant in this case is approved by the court.

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

Glover v. Cuming, 12 Wend. 295 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1835).

12 Wend. 295 (Glover v. Cuming) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sheehan v. La Belle Co.
105 A. 449 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1918)
Hinds v. Douglass
19 Abb. Pr. 11 (New York Supreme Court, 1865)
Osborne v. Tuller
14 Conn. 529 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1842)