Moyers v. Leoffler

District of Columbia

Moyers v. Leoffler

80 F. Supp. 221, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4054

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedSeptember 3, 1941

DocketCivil Action No. 3251

StatusPublished

This text of 80 F. Supp. 221 (Moyers v. Leoffler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moyers v. Leoffler, 80 F. Supp. 221, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4054 (D.D.C. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

BAILEY, Justice.

The plaintiff in opposing the motion to require security for costs does not deny that the plaintiff is a nonresident of the District of Columbia. The jurisdiction of this Court is not based on diversity of citizenship, and in any event if it were the fact of diversity of citizenship would have to be shown by the plaintiff.

The motion should be sustained and the plaintiff required to furnish an undertaking in the amount of one hundred dollars, [222]*222with surety approved by the court, or a cash deposit of $50 within twenty days from this date.

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

BAILEY, Justice.

The plaintiff in opposing the motion to require security for costs does not deny that the plaintiff is a nonresident of the District of Columbia. The jurisdiction of this Court is not based on diversity of citizenship, and in any event if it were the fact of diversity of citizenship would have to be shown by the plaintiff.

The motion should be sustained and the plaintiff required to furnish an undertaking in the amount of one hundred dollars, [222]*222with surety approved by the court, or a cash deposit of $50 within twenty days from this date.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 F. Supp. 221, 1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moyers-v-leoffler-dcd-1941.