Long v. Majestre
New York Court of Chancery
A RULE was granted, on the 13th of August last, to show cause why proceedings should not stay until adequate security for costs was filed; on the petition and affidavit of the defendants, that the plaintiff resided in the kingdom of France, and seeks, by his bill, an account of partnership transactions, alleged to have taken place partly in Europe, and partly in the United States.
Read the full summary
A RULE was granted, on the 13th of August last, to show cause why proceedings should not stay until adequate security for costs was filed; on the petition and affidavit of the defendants, that the plaintiff resided in the kingdom of France, and seeks, by his bill, an account of partnership transactions, alleged to have taken place partly in Europe, and partly in the United States. The answer of Majestre, the administratrix, had not yet been filed, and the other defendant had demurred to part of the bill.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancllor.
The 54th rule of this court, of June, 1806, requires security for costs, when a non-resident files a bill. The extent of that security, by the plaintiff, is not mentioned in the rule, and, of course, must be left to the discretion of the court. But if no such security be filed, and a solicitor prosecutes the suit, he is made responsible to the amount of 100 dollars, and no more. This does not, how*203,jver, prevent the court, in cases requiring it, from ordering security in a greater sum than what the solicitor stands charged with. The old rule in the English court of chancery.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Cole Silver Min. Co. v. Virginia & Gold Hill Water Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1871
- Goodrich v. PendletonNew York Court of Chancery · 1818
- Shuttleworth v. DunlopNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1881