Murphy v. Manhattan Brass Co.

Superior Court of New York

Murphy v. Manhattan Brass Co.

18 N.Y.S. 207

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedMarch 14, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 18 N.Y.S. 207 (Murphy v. Manhattan Brass Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murphy v. Manhattan Brass Co., 18 N.Y.S. 207 (superctny 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s right to security for costs depended upon section 3268, Code Civil Proc., as amended by chapter 170, Laws 1891. It says that a defendant may require security for costs to be given where the plaintiff was, when the action was commenced, (subdivision 5,) an infant whose guardian ad litem had not given such security, except as otherwise provided in sections 459 and 469 of the act. These sections refer to the right of an infant to obtain leave to prosecute as a poor person. As in this case it did not appear that the guardian ad litem had filed security for cost, or that the plaintiff had obtained leave to.sue as a poor person, the defendant’s motion should have been granted. The order appealed from is reversed, and defendant’s motion below granted, with $10 costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s right to security for costs depended upon section 3268, Code Civil Proc., as amended by chapter 170, Laws 1891. It says that a defendant may require security for costs to be given where the plaintiff was, when the action was commenced, (subdivision 5,) an infant whose guardian ad litem had not given such security, except as otherwise provided in sections 459 and 469 of the act. These sections refer to the right of an infant to obtain leave to prosecute as a poor person. As in this case it did not appear that the guardian ad litem had filed security for cost, or that the plaintiff had obtained leave to.sue as a poor person, the defendant’s motion should have been granted. The order appealed from is reversed, and defendant’s motion below granted, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 N.Y.S. 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-manhattan-brass-co-superctny-1892.