Colbeth v. Colbeth

Decided February 24, 1903

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1903-02-24

Security for costs: Discretion: Dismissal of action. 1. Under sec. 2942, Stats. 1898 (giving power to require plaintiff to give security for costs “in all cases where it shall appear reasonable and proper”), the court had discretionary power to require such security where two of the three plaintiffs were nonresidents, although the affidavit in support of the defendant’s application stated that the purpose was to obtain security under secs. 2943-2945, which did not authorize the order. 2. Failure to comply with an order requiring security for costs justifies dismissal of the action.

Relies on Joint School District No. 7 v. Kemen · Felton v. Hopkins

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1903-02-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1962

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Dodge, J.

¶1The circuit court had discretionary power, under sec. 2942, Stats. 1898, to require the appellant plaintiffs to give security for costs. The grounds stated in the affidavit were sufficient to support the affirmative exercise of that discretion, and we are unable to say that the court did not exercise it, and exercise it properly, notwithstanding the statement of defendant in her affidavit that her purpose was to obtain security in accordance with secs. 2943 et seq. Such order for security of costs was therefore within the power of the circuit court, and not an abuse of discretion, and valid. The failure of the appellant plaintiffs to comply therewith fully justified the order dismissing their action. Joint School Dist. v. Kemen, 72 Wis. 179, 39 N. W. 131; Felton v. Hopkins, 89 Wis. 143, 61 N. W. 77.

¶2By the Court. — The order appealed from is affirmed.