Electric Vehicle Co. v. Gallagher

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Electric Vehicle Co. v. Gallagher

145 F. 394, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4765

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedFebruary 17, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 145 F. 394 (Electric Vehicle Co. v. Gallagher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Electric Vehicle Co. v. Gallagher, 145 F. 394, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4765 (circtsdny 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

All the questions presented on this motion were disposed of at the argument except as to security for costs. The authorities cited on the brief of complainant have been since examined. The proposition to be settled is not what may be the ordinary chancery practice nor the rule in England, nor the provision [395]*395of the New York Code, hut solely what is the meaning of the Fifty-third rule of the Circuit Court in the Southern District of New York. The intention of the rule seems to be that when a nonresident plaintiff brings suit in this court he or it shall give security for costs. The language of the rule warrants such construction, and it is a righteous and wholesome one. Without it a nonresident, joining with him some resident who might be impecunious, might bring hundreds of suits here, incumbering our calendars, and, in the event of defeat, leaving defendants without even the inadequate compensation of the taxed costs, unless they should go to a foreign jurisdiction to sue. The residence of the complainant for the purposes of this motion must be settled by the bill. The usual security — $250 in each suit — should be filed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

All the questions presented on this motion were disposed of at the argument except as to security for costs. The authorities cited on the brief of complainant have been since examined. The proposition to be settled is not what may be the ordinary chancery practice nor the rule in England, nor the provision [395]*395of the New York Code, hut solely what is the meaning of the Fifty-third rule of the Circuit Court in the Southern District of New York. The intention of the rule seems to be that when a nonresident plaintiff brings suit in this court he or it shall give security for costs. The language of the rule warrants such construction, and it is a righteous and wholesome one. Without it a nonresident, joining with him some resident who might be impecunious, might bring hundreds of suits here, incumbering our calendars, and, in the event of defeat, leaving defendants without even the inadequate compensation of the taxed costs, unless they should go to a foreign jurisdiction to sue. The residence of the complainant for the purposes of this motion must be settled by the bill. The usual security — $250 in each suit — should be filed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 F. 394, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/electric-vehicle-co-v-gallagher-circtsdny-1906.