Rothchild v. Wilson
New York Supreme Court
At chambers. Plaintiff being a non-resident, and there being numerous defendants, a motion was made to require plaintiff to furnish separate undertakings to secure each defendant, in lieu of an undertaking given by plaintiff to secure all the defendants.
1Opinion of the Court
Lawrence; J.
Where the plaintiffs are non-residents, and there are two or more defendants, they cannot appear separately, and each require a bond to him as security for his costs. The statute1 requires only one bond, which should run to the defendants, and is for the benefit of them all. Leftwick v. Clinton, 26 How. Pr. 26. That case was decided under the old Code, and counsel have not referred me to any ease which modifies or qualifies that decision.
*62In these cases, it appears that an order was granted ex parte, on the motion of the defendant Wilson, requiring the plaintiff to give an…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Leftwick v. ClintonNew York Supreme Court · 1863
3Cited by5 opinions
- Feitelson v. MoserAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
- Robinson v. WhitakerNew York Supreme Court · 1922
- McAllister v. Marlo Offset Printing Corp.City of New York Municipal Court · 1955
- Kokomo Straw Board Co. v. SachsNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Perrin v. WhippleNew York Supreme Court · 1909