Legal Opinion
Kraft v. R. H. Macy & Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 30, 1943PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GODDARD, District Judge.
It is the general practice of this court to require a nonresident plaintiff to furnish security for costs. Long v. Stites, 6 Cir., 63 F.2d 855, at page 868; Cavicchi v. Mohawk Mfg. Co., Inc., D. C., 27 F.Supp. 981. It does not appear that it would be inequitable in the case at bar to follow the general practice. Motion for security for costs granted.
The allegations in Paragraphs “24” and “25” of the complaint to the effect that the defendants advised plaintiff that plaintiff would be paid $3,000 and be released from all obligations to them if he would return their…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Tennant v. . DudleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Tully v. HowardDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Long v. StitesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1933
- Cavicchi v. Mohawk Mfg. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Mulloney v. Federal Reserve BankDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1938
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- American Machine & Metals, Inc. v. De Bothezat Impeller Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1948
- Contogeorge v. SpyrouDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1946
- Dreskin v. ZinkinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1946
- Sewall v. Mutual Drug Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1945