Case Name: John Haulenbeck v. Wright Gillies and Jas. W. Gillies
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1858-12
Citations: 2 Hilt. 238
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Haulenbeck v. Wright Gillies and Jas. W. Gillies.
Judges: 
Reporter: Hilton's Common Pleas Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 238–243

Head Matter:
John Haulenbeck v. Wright Gillies and Jas. W. Gillies.
Under the law, as it existed, prior to the act of April, 1867, relative to the district courts in the city of New York, a non-resident plaintiff might, at his option, sue either by long or by short summons; the- only difference being that, in the latter case, he was required to furnish proof of his non-residence and give security.
But by that act the practice was changed. So that now a non-resident plaintiff must in all cases sue by short summons, and must first furnish proof of Ms non-residence, and give security for costs. Brady, J., dissenting.
In an action brought in a district court xvhen it appears by the evidence, and the objection is taken at the trial, that the plaintiff is a non-resident of tho county, and has not given security for the defendant’s costs, it is the duty of the justice to dismiss the action without costs, and without prejudice to a new suit. Brady, J., dissenting.
But if the objection is not thus taken, it is considered as waived; and the justice will be deemed to have jurisdiction of the action, although it may have been brought by a non-resident plaintiff by short summons, and without giving security.
Where the judgment of a justice is incomplete—e. g., where the return shows that the complaint was dismissed, but does not show that costs were awarded against the plaintiff, it can neither be reversed nor affirmed, but the appeal therefrom will be dismissed.
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Sixth District Court This action was commenced by a long summons, and no security was given for costs. On the return of the summons the defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint on this ground. The motion was granted, and the plaintiff appealed. The return did not show that any judgment was perfected for costs or otherwise against the plaintiff, and the defendants move on that ground to dismiss the appeal.
William McKeag, for the appellant.
Luther B. Marsh, for the respondents.
I. The appeal should be dismissed. A judgment of non-suit, where no costs are given against the plaintiff, is not appealable. 2 Johns. R. 8; 2 Cow. Tr. 1031.
II. Whenever a suit is commenced in any court in this state by a plaintiff not residing within the jurisdiction of the court, security for costs must be given. 2 R. S. (4th ed.) 821; Abbott’s Forms of Pleadings, 204, note c. The evident intent of the legislature, in requiring non-residents to file security for costs, is to protect citizens of this state from vexatious litigation by persons not residing within the jurisdiction of our courts, and to require from the plaintiffs, in such cases, what answers to the ancient pledges of prosecution. 3 Blackstone’s Com. 400.

Opinion:
By the Court, Hilton, J.
The plaintiff, a resident of New Jersey, sued the defendants in the Sixth District Court by long summons, and without giving security. The defendants appeared and, these facts being admitted, instead of answering, "moved to dismiss the case" because no security had been filed. The justice, in his return, states that he granted the motion, and from his ruling the jdaintiff appealed. Upon the argument, we are asked to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that such a determination, by which no costs are awarded, is not appealable.
' Under the law, as it existed prior to the act relative to the district courts in this city, passed April 13, 1857, (see Laws 1857, Yol. 1, p. 707), a non-resident plaintiff might, at his option, sue either by long or short summons; the only difference being that, in the latter case, he was required to furnish proof of his non-residence, and give security. Nicholls v. Tracy, 1 Sand. S. C. 278; King v. Dowdell, 2 Id. 131; Allen v. Stone, 9 Barb. S. C. 61; Kelly v. Kelly, 2 E. D. Smith, 250. But by the act of 1857, the practice in this respect was changed, as will be seen by an examination of its provisions. By § 13, where the plaintiff is not a resident of the county, and gives the security for costs required by § 23, the summons must be returnable in not less than two nor more than four days from its date. In other words, it must be a short summons. § 23 requires the security, in such cases, to be given before the summons is issued, and § 45 specifies the cases where the justice must render judgment dismissing the action with costs, and without prejudice to a new action. Among the cases there enumerated are those where it is objected at the trial, and appears by the evidence, that the action is brought by a plaintiff not a resident in the county, without giving the security required by § 23 of the act. If, however, the objection is not taken at the trial, it is waived, and the court will be deemed to have jurisdiction.
In this case the return shows that the fact of the plaintiff's non-residence duly appeared, and, the objection having been taken by the defendants that the action was brought without giving the security required by the act, the justice very properly dismissed the action. But, as it does not appear that any costs have been adjudged against the plaintiff, the determination of the justice appears to be incomplete, and, as was said by the late Supreme Court in a somewhat similar case, (Monell v. Weller, 2 John 8), is therefore incapable of reversal or affirmance.
For this reason the motion to dismiss the appeal must be granted.
Daly, First Judge, concurred.