Superior Court of New York, 1889

Teel v. Yost

Teel v. Yost
Superior Court of New York · Decided April 1, 1889 · Gorman
5 N.Y.S. 777; 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2617 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Samuel Blythe Rogers, for plaintiff. Lemuel Skidmore, for defendant.

Teel v. Yost

Opinion of the Court

O’Gorman, J.

This is a motion on the part of the defendant, who has answered in the action for security for costs under section 8268, etc., of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is an action on a written agreement, executed in Pennsylvania, and, under the laws of that state, entitled to be regarded as an instrument under seal. Whether it should' be so regarded for the purposes of this action, and whether the action is or is not barred by the statute of limitations, will probably be the main issues to be tried. The granting the defendant’s motion is within the discretion of the court, and in this case the motion should, in my opinion, be denied. Todd v. Marsily, 7 N. Y. St. Rep. 872; Churchman v. Merritt, 15 Civil Proc. R. 245, 2 N. Y. Supp. 843; Stevenson v. Railroad Co., 1 N. Y. Supp. 670.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.