Case Name: Alfred O. Dunk, Appellant, v. Eliza Dunk, as Executrix, etc., of Alfred Dunk, Deceased, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1903
Citations: 88 A.D. 297
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alfred O. Dunk, Appellant, v. Eliza Dunk, as Executrix, etc., of Alfred Dunk, Deceased, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 297–302

Head Matter:
Alfred O. Dunk, Appellant, v. Eliza Dunk, as Executrix, etc., of Alfred Dunk, Deceased, Respondent.
Security for costs—additional security cannot be ordered where security for the costs was given without an order. ■
Where the defendant in an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff makes two - separate motions, one to require the plaintiff to give security for costs and the other for additional security, but abandons each of such motions upon the plaintiff voluntarily delivering in each case an undertaking for costs, the court, never having ordered the plaintiff to give security for costs, has no jurisdiction to direct the plaintiff to file additional security for costs under section 3276 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Smith, J., dissented.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Alfred O. Dunk, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Broome Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of • the county of Broome on the 6th day of February, 1903, requiring the plaintiff to give an additional undertaking for costs.
The plaintiff is a non-resident, and soon after the commencement of this action the defendant gave notice to him of 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 court.
Subsequently the defendant noticed a motion upon the plaintiff, under section 3276 of the Oode, 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 thirty 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.
George B. Curtiss, for the appellant.
D. H. Carver, for the 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 to am, 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. I,t 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) is based is a clear authority for that conclusion.
The order appealed from should be reversed, with costs.
All concurred, except Smith, J., dissenting in opinion; Hough-TOh, J., not. sitting. .