Legal Opinion
Jones v. Knauss
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided October 15, 1880PublishedCited by 2 opinions
On motion to discharge order.
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor.
This is a motion to discharge an order requiring the complainants to give security for costs, and staying all proceedings until it be given. There are three complainants, two resident in this state, and the other a resident of Pennsylvania.
The practice seems to be settled against the defendant’s right to security in such a case. A complainant who is a non-resident will not be required to give security for costs, if he is joined with a resident complainant. 1 Hoffman’s Ch. Pr. 204; 1 Dan. Ch. Pr. 28; 1 Smith’s Ch. Pr. 555; Winthrop v. Royal Ass. Co., 1 Dick. 282; Walker v.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Haney v. MarshallCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1856
- Haney v. LundieSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877
- State v. . SimonsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1873
- Thalman v. BarbourIndiana Supreme Court · 1854
- Gilbert v. B. & B. F. GilbertNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Gerace v. BentleySuperior Court of The Virgin Islands · 2015
- Speakman v. International Pulverizing Corp.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936