Hamilton v. Dunn
Illinois Supreme Court
This was a proceeding to enforce a mechanics’ lien. The appellant appeared and moved for security for costs, on the following affidavit: “ James Hamilton personally appears, and being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the defendant in the above entitled suit; that he is well acquainted with, and has, for some months last past, well known the said Patrick Dunn, the plaintiff in said suit, both personally and by reputation.
Read the full summary
This was a proceeding to enforce a mechanics’ lien. The appellant appeared and moved for security for costs, on the following affidavit: “ James Hamilton personally appears, and being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the defendant in the above entitled suit; that he is well acquainted with, and has, for some months last past, well known the said Patrick Dunn, the plaintiff in said suit, both personally and by reputation. That the said Patrick Dunn, according to his own statements and admissions made to this affiant on or about the first day of December last past, was, and…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
The rule upon the plaintiff to show cause why he should not give security for costs, was properly discharged by the court on the counter affidavit of the plaintiff; that should have as much weight with the court, as the defendant’s affidavit. Such motions, in such cases, are not regarded in a very favorable light by courts, the object being most generally procrastination and delay. Slight evidence has been usually held sufficient to discharge such rule.
It appears from the record, that the motion for the rule and the filing the affidavit of the defendant was on the 8th day of February, and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- McGraw v. BayardIllinois Supreme Court · 1880
- Humrichous v. ThomasIndiana Supreme Court · 1912