Legal Opinion
Walker v. Holmes & Launitz
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 15, 1840PublishedCited by 2 opinions
The plaintiff being a non-resident, the defendants obtained an order that he file security for costs. 2 R. S. B20, tit. 2, The plaintiff’s attorney became surety by executing the proper bond, and justifying pursuant to the statute. The defendants now moved for judgment of non-pros, on the ground that an attorney cannot become such surety, and likened it to the case of special bail.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Bronson, J.
The practice on requiring
security for costs has been regulated by statute, and it is enough that the plaintiff has complied with the statute by executing a bond with a sufficient surety, and the surety has justified. See Barnett v. Pardow, 10 Wendell, 615.
Motion denied.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barnett v. PardowNew York Supreme Court · 1834
3Cited by2 opinions
- Miles v. ClarkeThe Superior Court of New York City · 1859
- Willmont v. MeseroleThe Superior Court of New York City · 1875