Legal Opinion

Di Filippo v. Pennsylvania R.

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided January 20, 1948No. Civ. A. No, 8665Published

1Opinion of the Court

BYERS, District Judge.

This is a motion by defendant to compel a nonresident plaintiff to file security for costs; it is opposed because the action is under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., and the Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. Section 6 of the former provides that such an *731action may be brought in a District Court of the United States in the district of the defendant’s residence, or where the cause arose, or where the defendant shall be doing business.

Local Rule 45 is relied upon by the defendant. That provides in substance that, in the absence of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  3. Southern Pacific Co. v. DentonSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  4. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. KepnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  5. The Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888

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

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

Powered by the Exa API