Hungarian General Credit-Bank v. Titus

175 A.D. 507, 161 N.Y.S. 1078, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8369
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 8, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 175 A.D. 507 (Hungarian General Credit-Bank v. Titus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hungarian General Credit-Bank v. Titus, 175 A.D. 507, 161 N.Y.S. 1078, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

Smith, J.:

The action was commenced in March, 1916, and the amended answer served upon May thirteenth of that year. On May seventeenth the plaintiff noticed the case for trial for the June term. The defendant served his notice of trial on May twentieth. On. July nineteenth the defendant moved to serve a supplemental answer, which motion was granted on July twenty-fifth, and the supplemental answer served on August 4, 1916. On September 19, 1916, an order was made requiring the plaintiff to give security for costs. From a subsequent order vacating this order this appeal has been taken.

[508]*508The sole question raised is whether the defendant has lost his right to security by his delay. Whatever may have been the rule prior to the amendment of 1915 of section 3272 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that amendment authorized the application to be made “at any time.” (Laws of 1915, chap. 635.) The Code as it now reads, therefore, would seem to be authority for the granting of this motion at the time it was granted, inasmuch as the plaintiff is a foreign corporation.

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, without costs.

Clarke, P. J., Scott, Page and Davis, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. Order to be settled on notice.

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

Related

Belford v. Faulk & Co.
169 Misc. 132 (New York Supreme Court, 1938)
Snyder v. Griswold
140 Misc. 82 (New York Supreme Court, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
175 A.D. 507, 161 N.Y.S. 1078, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hungarian-general-credit-bank-v-titus-nyappdiv-1916.