Uhle v. Burnham et al.

Uhle v. Burnham et al. (Circuit Court, S. D. New York. June 5, 1891.) Security for Costs — Delay. ... A motion for security for costs which is in effect an application for security as to extraordinary disbursements growing out of an order of reference, and which were not in contemplation of either party at an earlier stage of the case, will not he denied on the ground of delay, because not made until after the entry of the order of reference. In Equity. On motion for security for costs. Charles Puteel, for plaintiff. David A. Sullivan, for defendants. [MAJORITY — Lacombe, Circuit Judge.] Lacombe, Circuit Judge. Were tbis a motion for the ordinary security for costs, I should be inclined to deny it, on the ground of jielay; .but it is really an application for security as to extraordinary disbursements, which were not within the contemplation of either party until quite recently. The granting of such a motion at this stage of the case is within the discretion of the court. Hugunin v. Thatcher, 18 Fed. Rep. 105; Stewart v. The Sun, 36 Fed. Rep. 307. Inasmuch as the application, was made with reasonable diligence after the entry of the order of reference, the plaintiff should give security in the amount of $1,000 for so much of the costs and disbursements as may consist of referee’s fees and stenographer’s charges.