Leftwick v. Clinton
New York Supreme Court
The plaintiffs wefe non-residents. The defendants appeared separately and each obtained an order that plaintiffs file a bond to him as security for his costs in the penalty ol $250, or show cause, &c. Benj. Estes, for plaintiffs, claimed that only one bond could be required, and that it should run to “ the defendants ” and not to one of them.
Read the full summary
The plaintiffs wefe non-residents. The defendants appeared separately and each obtained an order that plaintiffs file a bond to him as security for his costs in the penalty ol $250, or show cause, &c. Benj. Estes, for plaintiffs, claimed that only one bond could be required, and that it should run to “ the defendants ” and not to one of them. J. A. Lynes, for defendants, contended that as the statute requires the plaintiffs to secure “the defendant,” each defendant could require a bond. He argued that if one should succeed at the circuit or special term and the other should be defeated, but…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
The language of the statute is, “ such security shall be given in the form of a bond in the penalty of at least two hundred and fifty dollars, with one or more sufficient sureties to the defendant, conditioned to pay on *27demand all costs that may be awarded to the defendant in such suit.” The statute provides for but a single bond; that bond should run to the defendants if there are more than one, and should be for the benefit of all. But while the statute limits the security to a single bond, it does not prevent the court or judge from requiring a bond in a larger penalty than two hundred and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Feitelson v. MoserAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
- Rothchild v. WilsonNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- McAllister v. Marlo Offset Printing Corp.City of New York Municipal Court · 1955
- Perrin v. WhippleNew York Supreme Court · 1909