Legal Opinion
Miller's Adm'r v. Norfolk & W. R.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Virginia
Decided May 18, 1891PublishedCited by 6 opinions
At Law. On motion for rule for security for costs.
1Opinion of the CourtPaul, J.
In each of these cases a motion is made by the defendant for a rule for security for costs on the part of the plaintiff, the plaintiff being a non-resident of the state of Virginia. The motion is made under the provisions of section 3539, Code Va. 1887. This statute provides:
“In any suit, except where such poor person is plaintiff, [referring to section 8538, where provision is made for suing informa pauperis,] there may be a suggestion on the record in court, or (if the case be at rules) on the rule docket, by a defendant or any official of the court, that the plaintiff is not a resident of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- NUDD v. Burrows, AssigneeSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Lyman Ventilating & Refrigerator Co. v. SouthardU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1875
- Duane v. RindU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1805
- Nicholls v. JohnsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1812
3Cited by6 opinions
- Schofield v. PalmerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Virginia · 1904
- Slusher v. JonesDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1943
- Silvas v. Arizona Copper Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1915
- Gerace v. BentleySuperior Court of The Virgin Islands · 2015
- McLaughlin v. KippAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.