Swift v. Collins
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
Motion on behalf of the defendants for security for costs. The action is in assumpsit, and Alanson Allen, who resides in the state of Vermont, claims to be the owner of the demand to recover which the suit is brought and is the party in interest therein, and the suit is prosecuted by him for his own benefit. The plaintiffs on the record reside in this state, but are insolvent.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Beardsley, J.
It is not necessary to inquire whether this case is within the words of the statute, (2 R. S. 619, tit. 2, § 1,) for the power to require security for costs is inherent in the court. (The People v. Oneida C. P., 18 Wend. 652.)
The real plaintiff in this case is beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and the nominal plaintiffs are insolvent. He should not he allowed to sue in their names, for his own benefit, without ■giving adequate security to pay costs if the defendants succeed in their defence.
Motion granted.
2Cited by13 opinions
- Harrigan v. GilchristWisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- Forman v. CampbellDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1878
- Dyer v. DunivanNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Gary v. Chambers Bros. Furriers, Inc.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1918
- McLaughlin v. KippAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.