Case ID: ny-st-rep_69/html/0552-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Beekman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Ridgway, as Receiver, etc., Pl’ff, v. Samuel Symons, as Receiver, etc., Def't.
    
      (Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
    
    
      Filed September 10, 1895.)
    
    Costs—Security for—Receiver.
    A receiver will be required to give security for costs in an action brought by him, only where it appears, not only that he is without funds applicable to the payment of costs, but also that the action has been brought in bad faith, or heedlessly, or without reasonable prospect of success.
    Motion to vacate an order requiring plaintiff to give security for costs.
    
      Gilbert B. Hawes, for pl’ff; Goldfogle & Cohen, for def’t.
   Beekman, J.

This is a motion to vacate an order requiring the plaintiff to give security for costs. The order was made ex parte. The granting of such an order against a receiver rests in the discretion of the court, and the power will be exercised, under well-settled principles, only where it appears, not only that the receiver is without funds applicable to the payment of costs, but also that the action has been brought in bad faith, or heedlessly, or without reasonable prospect of success. Bennett v. Goble, 43 Hun, 354; 6 St. Rep. 862; Rutherford v. Town of Madrid, 77 Hun, 545; 60 St. Rep. 391; Hale v. Mason, 86 Hun, 499; 67 St. Rep. 535. The plaintiff has brought this action by permission of the court. The charge that he has done so to harass and annoy the defendant is hardly sufficient upon which to base a finding of bad faith, in the absence of satisfactory evidence to that effect. Nor am I prepared to bold, upon the papers submitted to me, that the plaintiff has no reasonable prospect of success in the action. In view of the above considerations, the order should not have been granted.

But there is another objection which affects its validity. The application was necessarily made under section 3271 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An order under that section must be made bv the court. It cannot be made by a judge. Code Civ. Proc. § 3272. The order in question was not a court order, and was,, therefore, invalid.

Motion granted, with costs to abide the event.