Case ID: ad_117/html/0129-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McLaughlin, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alexander McKeaggan, as Administrator, etc., of John McKeaggan, Late of the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, Deceased, Respondent, v. Post & McCord, Appellant.
    First Department,
    January 25, 1907.
    Costs —non-resident plaintiff—when right to security for costs absolute.
    
      It seems, that when it is conceded that the plaintiff is a non-resident and has no property within the State, the defendant’s right to security for costs is absolute under section 3268 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
    In any event the court, in the exercise of its discretion under 'section ■ 3271 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should order security for costs under such circumstances.
    Appeal by the defendant, Post & McCord, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clei'k of the county of Hew York on the 30th day of Hovember, 1906, denying the defendant’s motion for an order requiring the plaintiff tó file security for costs.
    
      Louis Cohn, for the appellant.
    
      Talbert W. Sprague, for the respondent.
   McLaughlin, J.:

This action is brought to recover daihages alleged to have been sustained by the widow and next of kin by reason of the death of plaintiff’s intestate. Before answering the defendant made a motion to compel the plaintiff to file security for costs. The motion was denied and defendant has appealed.

The facts set out in the moving papers were' uncontradicted and were to the effect that the plaintiff and all of the next of kin for some time prior to and at the time of the commencement of the action were residents of Chelsea, Mass.; and there was no property within the State of Hew York. These facts being uncontradicted,, the motion for security should have been granted (Pursley v. Rodgers, 44 App. Div. 139), even though it be conceded that whether or not security should be required rested in the discretion of the court under section 3271 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where the plaintiff and all of the parties whom, the plaintiff represents are non-residents, and where there is apparently ho property of any kind within this State from which costs, in case plaintiff should fail in the action, could be collected, then the defendant is entitled to the favorable exercise of the court’s discretion in requiring security for costs.

Indeed, it is not at all clear that the plaintiff was not entitled, as a matter of right, under section 3268 of the Code to security, for costs. This section is a general provision and seems to relate to all cases where the plaintiffs are non-residents. However, it is unnecessary at this time to determine this question, because even under section 3271, upon the facts here presented, the defendant was entitled to the favorable exercise of {he court’s discretion.

■ The order appealed from, therefore,' must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion' to compel the plaintiff to give security for costs granted, ,with ten dollars costs.

Patterson, P. J.,' Ingraham, Laughlín and Houghton, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Order filed.