Case ID: ny-st-rep_65/html/0875-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William A. Harding, App’lt, v. Walter H. Field, Resp’t.
    Sup. Ct., 1 D.,
    February 15, 1895.
    
      T. D. Kenneson, for app’lt; H. R. Bayne, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that the order in this case should have required an undertaking from the plaintiff in the sum of §250 to meet the costs accruing upon the appeal taken by the plaintiff, and that security for past costs should not have been required. The order should be modified accordingly, and affirmed as modified, without costs to either party.