Robinson v. Sinclair

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Robinson v. Sinclair

1 Denio 628

CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

DecidedSeptember 15, 1845

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 1 Denio 628 (Robinson v. Sinclair) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robinson v. Sinclair, 1 Denio 628 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Beardsley, J.

Looking to the time when the order to stay proceedings was made and served, and the other circumstances of the case, it is plain enough that the step was resorted to as a mode of gaining time, and not from an apprehension of loss, if security for costs was not given. Delay, and not the prevention of injury, was the obvious motive. The defendant must pay the costs of the hearing appointed for the 26th of July, and of this motion.

I also think the order to shew cause should be discharged. The defendant might have obtained his order in December, and he should have moved off at that time. It is not pretended he was then ignorant of the fact of the plaintiff’s non-residence, and no excuse for the delay until July is given. The law exacts diligence of a defendant who would assert a right of this nature. He cannot, without good cause shewn, be allowed to lie by for months until the morning of a circuit, or of a hearing before referees, and then tie up the plaintiff by an order. Such a proceeding is in bad faith, and is not to be upheld. (Grah. Pr. 507; Duncan v. Stint, 5 Barn. & Ald. 702; Kasten v. Flaw, 1 Moore & Payne, 30.) The statute, (2 R. S. 620.) is not imperative upon the court to grant an order for security for costs, under all circumstances, and where the application is resorted to for another and improper purpose it should never be granted.

The order to shew cause must be vacated, with costs to be paid by the defendant as has been stated.

Ordered accordingly.

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

By the Court, Beardsley, J.

Looking to the time when the order to stay proceedings was made and served, and the other circumstances of the case, it is plain enough that the step was resorted to as a mode of gaining time, and not from an apprehension of loss, if security for costs was not given. Delay, and not the prevention of injury, was the obvious motive. The defendant must pay the costs of the hearing appointed for the 26th of July, and of this motion.

I also think the order to shew cause should be discharged. The defendant might have obtained his order in December, and he should have moved off at that time. It is not pretended he was then ignorant of the fact of the plaintiff’s non-residence, and no excuse for the delay until July is given. The law exacts diligence of a defendant who would assert a right of this nature. He cannot, without good cause shewn, be allowed to lie by for months until the morning of a circuit, or of a hearing before referees, and then tie up the plaintiff by an order. Such a proceeding is in bad faith, and is not to be upheld. (Grah. Pr. 507; Duncan v. Stint, 5 Barn. & Ald. 702; Kasten v. Flaw, 1 Moore & Payne, 30.) The statute, (2 R. S. 620.) is not imperative upon the court to grant an order for security for costs, under all circumstances, and where the application is resorted to for another and improper purpose it should never be granted.

The order to shew cause must be vacated, with costs to be paid by the defendant as has been stated.

Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Denio 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-sinclair-nycterr-1845.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack