
    PERRIN v. WHIPPLE et al.
    (Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
    May, 1909.)
    Costs (§ 121)—Security for Costs—Several Defendants.
    Several eodefendants cannot appear separately and each require plaintiff to give bond to him as security for his costs; plaintiff being required to give but one bond to the defendants for the benefit of all.
    ■ [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Costs, Cent. Dig. § 485; Dec. Dig. § 121.]
    Action by one Perrin against one Whipple and others. Motions to vacate orders to file bonds for costs.
    Granted.
    See, also, 118 N. Y. Supp. 551.
    Gilbert Ray Hawes, for the motion.
    William H. Fain, opposed.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Bep’r Indexes
    
   DAYTON, J.

Action (apparently) brought for specific performance of contract. Defendants appeared separately, and each obtained an ex parte order directing that security for costs be filed in $250. Plaintiff makes three motions to vacate "said orders.

In Rothchild v. Wilson (Sup.) 10 N. Y. Supp. 61, Mr. Justice Lawrence held as follows:

“Where the plaintiffs are nonresidents, and there are two or more defend- • ants, they cannot appear separately and each require a bond to him as security for his costs. The statute requires only one bond, which should run ‘to the defendants,’ and is for the benefit of them all”—citing Leftwick v. Clinton, 26 How. Prac. 26.

I have not been referred to any authority distinguishing or overruling that decision.

Plaintiff is therefore strictly within his rights in making these motions, which must be granted, with $10 costs of each motion, but without prejudice to an application by defendants for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking in the sum of $750 to secure the defendants for all costs which may be awarded to them in this action.  