Case Name: DUNK v. DUNK
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1903-11-11
Citations: 85 N.Y.S. 25
Docket Number: 
Parties: DUNK v. DUNK.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 85
Pages: 25–28

Head Matter:
(88 App. Div. 297.)
DUNK v. DUNK.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
November 11, 1903.)
1. Costs—Security—Allowance of Undertaking—Additional Security.
A court cannot, under Code Civ. Proc. § 3276, providing for an order for additional security for costs “after the allowance” of an undertaking for costs, order “additional” security for costs, where there has been no previous allowance by the court of an undertaking, though one has been given voluntarily.
Smith, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term.
Action by Alfred O. Dunk against Eliza Dunk, executrix. From an order requiring additional security for costs of plaintiff, he appeals.
Reversed.
See 82 N. Y. Supp. 1099.
The plaintiff is a nonresident, and soon after the commencement of this action the defendant noticed on him a motion to require him to file an undertaking in the sum of $250, or else to deposit that amount in court as security for the costs of the action, pursuant to the provisions of section 3272 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereupon the plaintiff voluntarily delivered to the defendant’s attorney a bond in that amount, conditioned for the payment of such costs, executed by the National Surety Company, and the motion was abandoned. No undertaking was ever “allowed” or money deposited pursuant to such section 3272. No order was ever made thereunder, and no application for security under such section has ever been presented to the cburt. Subsequently the defendant noticed a motion upon the plaintiff under section 3276 of the Code for additional security, but such notice was never brought to a hearing. The plaintiff again delivered to the defendant’s attorney a bond for $500, conditioned as security for such additional costs, executed by the same company as surety, and the motion was abandoned. The action then proceeded to trial before a referee, and resulted in a judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, and for costs to the amount of $1,129.84. An appeal was taken by the plaintiff from such judgment, and the defendant thereupon moved under section 3276 for additional security for the costs past and to be incurred. The court at Special Term made an order requiring the plaintiff within 30 days to give an additional undertaking in the sum of $750, with two sufficient sureties, as such security, together with $10 costs of such motion, and from such order this appeal is taken.
Argued before PARKER, P. J., and SMITH, CHASE, and CHESTER, JJ.
George B. Curtiss, for appellant.
D. H. Carver, for respondent.

Opinion:
PARKER, P. J.
The court has no authority to make an order for "additional" security for costs, save that given it by section 3276 of the Code. By the plain provisions of such section such an order may be made after the allowance of an undertaking given pursuant to an order of the court, or after notice of the payment of money into court pursuant toi an order thereof. The fact that a prior order has been made determining the liability of the plaintiff to file security for costs seems to be a condition precedent to the granting of "additional security" under this section. Concededly, no such order has been previously made. The first application to the court for security in this action is the one now before us, and the first order made on the subject is the one appealed from. It purports to have been made pursuant to section 3276, and assumes to give additional security. I am of the opinion that it was not warranted by such section, and that the principle upon which the decision in Republic of Honduras v. Soto, 112 N. Y. 310, 312, 19 N. E. 845, 2 L. R. A. 642, 8 Am. St. Rep. 744, is based, is a clear authority for that conclusion.
The order appealed from should be reversed, with costs.^
CHASE and CHESTER, JJ., concur.