From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bauer v. Whitehouse

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham
Dec 30, 1976
367 A.2d 602 (N.H. 1976)

Opinion

No. 7556

Decided December 30, 1976

1. RSA 525:3 authorizes the superior court for good cause shown to require security only for taxable costs authorized by the statute or recoverable, and the security ordered must bear some reasonable relationship to the probable amount of the costs.

2. Although the trial court may have had good cause to require security from the plaintiff before proceeding with a second trial, the amount of the bond it ordered as security appears to exceed recoverable costs, so that the order as to the amount of the bond is vacated and the matter is remanded for a redetermination of the amount of the bond.

James P. Nadeau and Gary Howard Reiner (Mr. Reiner orally) for the plaintiff.

Griffin, Harrington, Brigham Ritzo (Mr. James E. Ritzo orally) for the defendant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

After an eight-day trial of this alienation of affection suit, the jury was deadlocked five to one for the defendant and a mistrial was declared. Defendant's motion for a bond as security for costs in the amount of ten percent of the ad damnum of one hundred thousand dollars was granted, and plaintiff's exception was transferred by Cann, J.

RSA 525:3 authorizes the superior court for good cause shown to order security for costs. We cannot say that the justice who observed the parties and heard the evidence during the eight-day trial could not have found good cause to require security from the plaintiff before proceeding with a second trial.

In our opinion, the security authorized is only for taxable costs authorized under the statute or otherwise recoverable. See Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Plante, 106 N.H. 525, 214 A.2d 742 (1965); Guay v. Association, 87 N.H. 216, 177 A. 409 (1935). Although the trial court has wide discretion (La Plante v. Iafolla Constr. Co., 111 N.H. 120, 276 A.2d 11 (1971); Hatch v. Rideout, 96 N.H. 122, 70 A.2d 485 (1950)) the bond required must bear some reasonable relationship to the probable amount of the costs which may ultimately be recoverable. The bond required in this case appears to exceed recoverable costs. The order as to the amount of the bond is therefore vacated and the matter is remanded for a redetermination of the amount of the bond.

Exception sustained in part and overruled in part; remanded.


Summaries of

Bauer v. Whitehouse

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham
Dec 30, 1976
367 A.2d 602 (N.H. 1976)
Case details for

Bauer v. Whitehouse

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD BAUER v. DONALD WHITEHOUSE

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham

Date published: Dec 30, 1976

Citations

367 A.2d 602 (N.H. 1976)
367 A.2d 602