New York Supreme Court, 1893

Cornuel v. Heinze

Cornuel v. Heinze
New York Supreme Court · Decided February 17, 1893
22 N.Y.S. 117; 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 461 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Arthur P. Heinze, for appellant., Tracy, Boardman & Platt, for respondents.

Cornuel v. Heinze

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

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 *118terms 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 $10 costs and disbursements.

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