Stewart v. The Sun

36 F. 307, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2617
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided August 31, 1888·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Lacombe, J.

The state courts which refuse to require security for costs from a non-resident plaintiff, where defendant has delayed moving until after answer is served, also hold that impecunious non-residents may not sue informa pauperis. In this court such plaintiffs are allowed this privilege; and an equitable application of the doctrine of Heckman v. Mackey, 32 Fed. Rep. 574, would seem to warrant the court in requiring security from solvent non-resident plaintiffs at any time, — at least when no special prejudice to plaintiffs’ rights is shown to have resulted from defendant’s delay in moving. Defendant in each case may take an order requiring plaintiffs to file security in the amount of $500.

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

Stewart v. The Sun, 36 F. 307, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2617 (circtsdny 1888).

36 F. 307 (Stewart v. The Sun) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gerace v. Bentley
62 V.I. 254 (Superior Court of The Virgin Islands, 2015)
Poa v. Rice
26 Haw. 112 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1921)
Deprez v. Thomson-Houston Electric Co.
66 F. 22 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, 1894)