Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

De Hay v. Cline

District Court, N.D. Texas

Decided February 8, 1933No. 4481PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ATWELL, District Judge.

Rule 5 of this court, in harmony with an Act of July the 20th, 1892, page 252, volume 27, Stat. at Large, as amended in 1910, as shown at page 866; 36 Stat. at Large (28 USCA § 832 note), requires the deposit for costs or security therefor, except where the litigant is a pauper.

Under this provision in states such as Texas, where contracts between attorneys and clients for a contingent interest are legal, if the attorney has such interest, he too must testify to his inability to either pay the cost or give security therefor.

In addition to this there must also be a…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
  2. Boyle v. Great Northern Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington · 1894
  3. United States ex rel. Randolph v. RossCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1924
  4. Feil v. Wabash R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1902
  5. Phillips v. Louisville & N. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Alabama · 1907

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Higgins v. SteeleCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1952
  2. HOME OWNERS'LOAN CORPORATION v. HuffmanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1943
  3. Gilmore v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1942
  4. Richardson v. HatchDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 1955
  5. Bolt v. Reynolds Metal Co.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1941

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API