Esquibel v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
District Court, D. New Mexico
Action by Eulalia T. P'squibel, as administratrix, against the Atchi-son, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company. On motion to require plaintiff to give security for costs.
1Opinion of the Court
POPE, District Judge.
Motion has been made herein for security for costs from the plaintiff. An affidavit has been fded on her behalf, setting up poverty, and thus the right to sue without security for costs under the provisions of Act June 20, 1892, 27 Stats, c. 209. page 252 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 706). As against this latter an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the defendant, setting up that the attorne}^ in the case are prosecuting the case upon a contingent fee, and are thus interested in the result of the litigation. This is admitted by plaintiff’s counsel upon the hearing of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Boyle v. Great Northern Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington · 1894
- Feil v. Wabash R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1902
- Reed v. Pennsylvania Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1901
- Phillips v. Louisville & N. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Alabama · 1907
- The BellaDistrict Court, D. Washington · 1899
3Cited by7 opinions
- Adkins v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- United States ex rel. Randolph v. RossCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1924
- United States ex rel. Payne v. CallCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1923
- De Hay v. ClineDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1933
- Bolt v. Reynolds Metal Co.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1941
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.