Majority
p. 461Emil Alfred Cornuel et al., Resp’ts, v. Otto C. Heinze, App’lt. (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department, Filed February 17, 1893.)
Headnote
Costs — Security fob.The court has power to allow a plaintiff to file security for costs after the time limited in the order, upon such terms as are just and equitable.
Appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs’ failure to file security for costs at the time fixed by a previous order.
Plaintiffs were required by order to file security for costs, they being non-residents. The time to file such security was extended by stipulation for sixty days. After that time had elapsed, notice of this motion was given, and plaintiffs thereupon filed security before the hearing. The court denied the motion, and ordered that the security filed stand as the security required by the order.
Arthur P. Heinze, for app’lt; Tracy, Boardman & Platt, for resp’ts.
We are of the opinion that the court had power to allow the plaintiff to file security for costs after the expiration of the time limited in the order, as extended by the stipulation, upon such terms as were just and equitable; and that it had the right to refuse to dismiss the complaint upon the plaintiffs complying with such terms and filing such security.
The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Yak Brukt, P. J., O'Briek and Follett, JJ., concur.