Teel v. Yost

5 N.Y.S. 777, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2617
The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo·Decided April 1, 1889·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

O’Gorman, J.

This is a motion on the part of the defendant, who has answered in the action for security for costs under section 8268, etc., of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is an action on a written agreement, executed in Pennsylvania, and, under the laws of that state, entitled to be regarded as an instrument under seal. Whether it should' be so regarded for the purposes of this action, and whether the action is or is not barred by the statute of limitations, will probably be the main issues to be tried. The granting the defendant’s motion is within the discretion of the court, and in this case the motion should, in my opinion, be denied. Todd v. Marsily, 7 N. Y. St. Rep. 872; Churchman v. Merritt, 15 Civil Proc. R. 245, 2 N. Y. Supp. 843; Stevenson v. Railroad Co., 1 N. Y. Supp. 670.

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

Teel v. Yost, 5 N.Y.S. 777, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2617 (superctny 1889).

5 N.Y.S. 777 (Teel v. Yost) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fagan v. Strong
11 N.Y.S. 766 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)