Legal Opinion

Marino v. Shiff Realty Co.

Court of Common Pleas of New Jersey

Decided February 17, 1933PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

In this action there are five plaintiffs, some of whom are claimed to be non-residents. Defendant has demanded security for costs in the case of the nonresidents under the statute (sections 204 and 205 of the Practice act, Pamph. L. 1903, pp. 590, 591). Plaintiffs move to strike the demand, citing decisions of our New Jersey courts to the effect that the practice is not to require security for costs against non-resident plaintiffs when joined with one or more resident plaintiffs. The cases cited are: 3 N. J. D. 447, Anonymous; Den v. Boqua, 10 Id. 192; Jones v. Knauss, 33 N. J. Eq. 188, and…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Myers v. MyersNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1932

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Waterbury v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1933
  2. Gerace v. BentleySuperior Court of The Virgin Islands · 2015
  3. Speakman v. International Pulverizing Corp.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API