Porter v. . Jones
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Motion heard before Mitchell, J., at the Fall Term, 1872, of the Superior Court for Alleghany county. The defendants filed an affidavit charging that the plaintiff had sued in forma pauperis, and that she was a nonresident, living in the State of Tennessee. The facts stated were admitted by plaintiff. The defendant then moved to dismiss the action upon the ground that a non-resident cannot sue as a pauper in the Courts of this State. His Honor refused to allow the motion.
Read the full summary
Motion heard before Mitchell, J., at the Fall Term, 1872, of the Superior Court for Alleghany county. The defendants filed an affidavit charging that the plaintiff had sued in forma pauperis, and that she was a nonresident, living in the State of Tennessee. The facts stated were admitted by plaintiff. The defendant then moved to dismiss the action upon the ground that a non-resident cannot sue as a pauper in the Courts of this State. His Honor refused to allow the motion. Defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtSettle, J.
The sole question in this case is, can a nonresident of this State, but a resident of another State in the Union, sue in our Courts as a pauper ?
The Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 72, enacts, that “any Judge of the Superior Court may authorize any person to sue as a pauper,” when he shall comply with the terms of the act, &c., &c.
The expression, any person, is very broad and comprehensive, as is also the language in .the Revised Statutes, chap. 3l, sec. 47, and in the Revised Code, chap. 31, sec. 43, butwe can find no case in this State in which the right of a citizen of another State to sue…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Christian v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Christian v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Hinton v. . Whitehurst, Adm'r. .Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1875
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. JacobsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1894
- Harris v. Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1891