Farnsworth v. Agnew
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of ejectment, in the Monroe Circuit Court, to recover certain land lying in that county. The plaintiff in error filed Ms declaration,, with the usual notice, on the 12th day of April, 1858, and also a bond for costs in the usual form. On the same day plaintiff moved for a rule on defendant to plead in twenty days, and defendant entered a cross-motion to dismiss said suit for want of a bond for costs.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment, in the Monroe Circuit Court, to recover certain land lying in that county. The plaintiff in error filed Ms declaration,, with the usual notice, on the 12th day of April, 1858, and also a bond for costs in the usual form. On the same day plaintiff moved for a rule on defendant to plead in twenty days, and defendant entered a cross-motion to dismiss said suit for want of a bond for costs. On these motions an affidavit, by Morrison, defendant’s attorney, was presented to the court, and then amended by striking out certain words, being in effect that the bond for…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
The bond for costs in this case was not filed, until after the service of the declaration and notice on defendant in error. A motion was entered to dismiss the suit for want of such a bond filed before suit was instituted, which motion was allowed and the suit dismissed, which is assigned for error. The first section of the cost act, requires, that in all cases in law or equity where the plaintiff or person for whose use an action is commenced, shall not be a resident of this State, the plaintiff or person for whose use the action is to be commenced, shall, before he institutes such suit,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Kiesel v. District Court of Sixth Judicial Dist. Ex Rel. Sevier CountyUtah Supreme Court · 1938
- Edgar Gold & Silver Mining Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Colorado · 1887