Worthington v. Warner
City of New York Municipal Court
Motion to modify order requiring plaintiff to give security for costs by striking out a provision extending time to-answer, on the ground that no affidavit of merits had been filed. The motion was based on General Rule 24, providing that “ no order extending a defendant’s time to answer or demur shall be granted, unless the party applying for such order shall present ... an affidavit of merits, or proof that it has been filed,” etc.
1Opinion of the CourtHyatt, J.
The plaintiff has been required to file security for costs, and the time of the defendant to answer has been extended a certain number of days after the plaintiff files such security. Both directions are contained in the same order. The plaintiff asks that the order be-modified by striking out the provision extending the time to answer, upon the ground that the defendant has not-sworn to merits.
Until the plaintiff files security for costs, he has no standing in court. The defendant should not be required to make and file an affidavit of merits until the plaintiff' *267decides whether or not he…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bronson v. FreemanNew York Supreme Court · 1853
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kinley v. American Hardware Manufacturing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1906