Burgess v. Gregory
New York Court of Chancery
fe appeared upon the face of the bill in this case that the * - complainant resided out of the jurisdiction. The suit had pro-grossed as far as taking of exceptions to the defendant’s an- ° " swer- _ Mr. D. D. Field now moved for ax order reaerríng the complainant to give security for costs.
Read the full summary
fe appeared upon the face of the bill in this case that the * - complainant resided out of the jurisdiction. The suit had pro-grossed as far as taking of exceptions to the defendant’s an- ° " swer- _ Mr. D. D. Field now moved for ax order reaerríng the complainant to give security for costs. Mr. F. S'. Kinney opposed: insisting upon the delay as u sufficient objection; and that the application should have been mac¡e immediately after the opposite party had notice of the non-residence.
1Opinion of the Court
Tee Vice-Chancellor.
I have examined the point now before the court with some care. It is desirable the practice should be settled.
According to early English cases, and as far back, in our own courts, as in the year one thousand eight hundred and fourteen, the defendant was required to make the application for security for costs (in a case where the complainant was a non-resident,) on the first opportunity7 after the defendant knew of the fact: Long v. Tardy, 1 J. C. R. 202, and also see Goodrich v. Pendleton, 3 Ib. 520, Any step after-wards was said to be a waiver of the right to such…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hugunin v. ThatcherU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1883
- Jones v. KnaussNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1880
- Shuttleworth v. DunlopNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1881