Hubbard v. Gicquel

City of New York Municipal Court

Hubbard v. Gicquel

15 N.Y. St. Rep. 397

DecidedMarch 15, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 15 N.Y. St. Rep. 397 (Hubbard v. Gicquel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hubbard v. Gicquel, 15 N.Y. St. Rep. 397 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

MacAdam, C. J.

The defendant obtained an order requiring the plaintiff to file security for costs on the ground of non-residence. The plaintiff thereupon filed security. [398]*398The bond was signed by the plaintiff’s attorney, and while irregular on that account, this objection to it was not taken, and the bond was approved of in one of the ways pointed out by the Code. The bond is in the form required by section 3273 of the Code, and its effect is to relieve the attorney from the summary remedy allowed in cases in which no bond is filed, and to limit the defendant in his remedy to an action on the bond. The bond is a valid obligation and not void because signed by an attorney as surety. See cases cited in Weeks on Attorneys, section 119. For these reasons and those assigned by the court below the order denying the defendant’s application for an order requiring the attorney to pay the costs awarded against his client will be affirmed with costs, but without prejudice to any action which the defendant may bring against the attorney upon the undertaking filed herein.

Browne and Ehrlich, JJ., concur.

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

MacAdam, C. J.

The defendant obtained an order requiring the plaintiff to file security for costs on the ground of non-residence. The plaintiff thereupon filed security. [398]*398The bond was signed by the plaintiff’s attorney, and while irregular on that account, this objection to it was not taken, and the bond was approved of in one of the ways pointed out by the Code. The bond is in the form required by section 3273 of the Code, and its effect is to relieve the attorney from the summary remedy allowed in cases in which no bond is filed, and to limit the defendant in his remedy to an action on the bond. The bond is a valid obligation and not void because signed by an attorney as surety. See cases cited in Weeks on Attorneys, section 119. For these reasons and those assigned by the court below the order denying the defendant’s application for an order requiring the attorney to pay the costs awarded against his client will be affirmed with costs, but without prejudice to any action which the defendant may bring against the attorney upon the undertaking filed herein.

Browne and Ehrlich, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.Y. St. Rep. 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubbard-v-gicquel-nynyccityct-1888.