Uhle v. Burnham

46 F. 500, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1297
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided June 5, 1891·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Lacombe, Circuit Judge.

Were tbis a motion for the ordinary security for costs, I should be inclined to deny it, on the ground of jielay; .but it is really an application for security as to extraordinary disbursements, which were not within the contemplation of either party until quite recently. The granting of such a motion at this stage of the case is within the discretion of the court. Hugunin v. Thatcher, 18 Fed. Rep. 105; Stewart v. The Sun, 36 Fed. Rep. 307. Inasmuch as the application, was made with reasonable diligence after the entry of the order of reference, the plaintiff should give security in the amount of $1,000 for so much of the costs and disbursements as may consist of referee’s fees and stenographer’s charges.

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

Uhle v. Burnham, 46 F. 500, 1891 U.S. App. LEXIS 1297 (circtsdny 1891).

46 F. 500 (Uhle v. Burnham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cornacchio v. Coniglio
7 F.R.D. 749 (E.D. New York, 1947)
Peltz v. Carolina Bagging Co.
1 F.R.D. 779 (S.D. New York, 1941)
Minneapolis Gasoline & Fuel Co. v. Ethyl Gasoline Corp.
38 F. Supp. 454 (S.D. New York, 1941)
Cavicchi v. Mohawk Mfg. Co.
27 F. Supp. 981 (S.D. New York, 1939)
Deprez v. Thomson-Houston Electric Co.
66 F. 22 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, 1894)