Foster v. Swasey

9 F. Cas. 579, 10 Law Rep. 32
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
DecidedOctober 15, 1846
DocketCase No. 4,984
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 9 F. Cas. 579 (Foster v. Swasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Foster v. Swasey, 9 F. Cas. 579, 10 Law Rep. 32 (circtdma 1846).

Opinions

WOODBURY, Circuit Justice.

The motion is refused, because it is so late. The place-of the plaintiff’s residence appears in the bill, and was known several terms ago. 1 Daniels, Eq. Prac. 36, 41; 3 Johns. Ch. 520. The motion, therefore, should have been made-before so much cost was incurred, and the case ready for a hearing. A motion of this kind, too, is granted only when the party is a resident abroad. Newl. Ch. Pr. 410. Cases exist where being resident in Ireland or Scot[581]*581land has been regarded as abroad for this purpose. But those countries are under distinct judicial tribunals, and in some respects under different laws; while in this case the plaintiff resides, not out of the United States, nor even out of this circuit, but in the state of Maine. I think it would, at this late day in the case, and under the circumstances of his living within this circuit, be unjustifiable to require him to furnish security as coming either within our practice or that of England. The 44th rule provides, if the plaintiff lives without the state, the defendant may require security for cost, if moving it at the first term. But the motion is not made in season to come within this rule, and being founded only on the general practice in chancery, must by that be refused.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 F. Cas. 579, 10 Law Rep. 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-v-swasey-circtdma-1846.