Case Name: ASSETS COLLECTING CO. v. BARNES-KING DEVELOPMENT CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1913-10-16
Citations: 209 F. 206
Docket Number: 
Parties: ASSETS COLLECTING CO. v. BARNES-KING DEVELOPMENT CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 209
Pages: 206–207

Head Matter:
ASSETS COLLECTING CO. v. BARNES-KING DEVELOPMENT CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
October 16, 1913.)
Appeal and Error (§ 99 )—Orders Reviewable—Discretion—Security for Attachment!—Increase.
An order vacating an attachment, unless plaintiff increased, the existing security from $1,000 to $2,500, was in no sense -final, but purely discretionary, and not reviewable.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 661-669; Dec. Dig. § 99. ]
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York; E. Henry Lacombe, Judge.
Action by the Assets Collecting Company against the Barnes-King Development Company. From an ord^r vacating an attachment, unless plaintiff increased the security to $2,500, it brings error.
Dismissed.
R. S. 'Harvey and F. E. M. Bullowa, both of New York City, for -plaintiff in error.
Chadbourne & Shores, of New York City, for defendant in error.
Before COXE and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and HAZEL, District-Judge.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is a motion to quash a writ of error to review an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated July 22, 1913, which order provided that the attachment heretofore granted be vacated unless the plaintiff increase the existing security from $1,000 to $2,500. The plaintiff has failed to increase the security as required and now sues out a writ of error to review the order requiring it. The court below, being of the opinion that the existing security was insufficient, was certainly justified in increasing it. Its action was in no sense final, but was purely discretionary, and intended only to give the defendant additional security covering the fees and costs incurred by it subsequent to the order of March 4, 1911. Such an order is not reviewable on writ of error. Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3, 1 Sup. Ct. 15, 27 L. Ed. 73; Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176, 15 L. Ed. 891; Atlantic Lumber Co. v. L. Bucki, etc., Co., 92 Fed. 864, 35 C. C. A. 59.
The motion to dismiss the writ of error is granted.