Podmore v. South Brooklyn Savings Institution

New York Supreme Court

Podmore v. South Brooklyn Savings Institution

27 Misc. 120, 57 N.Y.S. 406

DecidedApril 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Misc. 120 (Podmore v. South Brooklyn Savings Institution) 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

Podmore v. South Brooklyn Savings Institution, 27 Misc. 120, 57 N.Y.S. 406 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Giegerich, J.

In view of the affidavits filed in support of the plaintiff’s proceedings in the Surrogate’s Court, I am inclined to believe that the action is prosecuted with a reasonable prospect of success; and that a substantial issue exists as to the validity of the payment made by defendant in recognition of the claim of a gift causa mortis. It appears that the plaintiff has brought the action in good faith, and, under the authorities, the fact that the estate is without assets is not alone sufficient to call for an order for security for costs. Rutherford v. Town of Madrid, 77 Hun, 545; Hale v. Mason, 86 id. 499; Brown v. Dean, 83 id. 613; Fagan v. Strong, 19 Civ. Pro. 88; 7 N. Y. Supp. 919; Sullivan v. McManus, N. Y. Law Jour., Nov. 1, 1894; Ridgway v. Symons, 14 Misc. Rep. 78; Cahn v. Sugenheimer, N. Y. Law Jour., April 4, 1899. For these reasons, the motion to compel the administrator to give security for costs is denied.

Motion denied.

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

Giegerich, J.

In view of the affidavits filed in support of the plaintiff’s proceedings in the Surrogate’s Court, I am inclined to believe that the action is prosecuted with a reasonable prospect of success; and that a substantial issue exists as to the validity of the payment made by defendant in recognition of the claim of a gift causa mortis. It appears that the plaintiff has brought the action in good faith, and, under the authorities, the fact that the estate is without assets is not alone sufficient to call for an order for security for costs. Rutherford v. Town of Madrid, 77 Hun, 545; Hale v. Mason, 86 id. 499; Brown v. Dean, 83 id. 613; Fagan v. Strong, 19 Civ. Pro. 88; 7 N. Y. Supp. 919; Sullivan v. McManus, N. Y. Law Jour., Nov. 1, 1894; Ridgway v. Symons, 14 Misc. Rep. 78; Cahn v. Sugenheimer, N. Y. Law Jour., April 4, 1899. For these reasons, the motion to compel the administrator to give security for costs is denied.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Misc. 120, 57 N.Y.S. 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/podmore-v-south-brooklyn-savings-institution-nysupct-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack