Legal Opinion

Stewart v. The Sun

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Decided August 31, 1888PublishedCited by 3 opinions

On Motion for Security for Costs.

1Opinion of the CourtLacombe, J.

The state courts which refuse to require security for costs from a non-resident plaintiff, where defendant has delayed moving until after answer is served, also hold that impecunious non-residents may not sue informa pauperis. In this court such plaintiffs are allowed this privilege; and an equitable application of the doctrine of Heckman v. Mackey, 32 Fed. Rep. 574, would seem to warrant the court in requiring security from solvent non-resident plaintiffs at any time, — at least when no special prejudice to plaintiffs’ rights is shown to have resulted from defendant’s delay in moving.…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Deprez v. Thomson-Houston Electric Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1894
  2. Poa v. RiceHawaii Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Gerace v. BentleySuperior Court of The Virgin Islands · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API