Perkins v. Hinman

Decided October 15, 1821

New York Supreme Court · decided 1821-10-15

THIS was an action on a promissory note, originally commenced in the Court of Common Pleas o‘f Otsego county. An affidavit of the non-residence of the plaintiff was filed in that court, and a rule entered requiring the plaintiff to file security for costs ; but before any security was filed, the default of the plaintiff was entered, and a judgment of nonsuit was, afterwards, perfected, with costs, amounting to thirteen dollars and sixteen cents, which remained unpaid.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1821-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1938

6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1This point appears not to have been decided in this court. But the practice is well settled in the, *238English courts in cases of ejectment; and in the Court of E. B. the rule is extended to other actions, whether the former action was in that court, or in the Court of C. P. We shall adopt the rule of the K, B., and grant the motion. The plaintiff, therefore, cannot proceed in this court, until he has paid the costs of the nonsuit in the court below.

¶2Rule granted.(a)

¶3 Vide Stebbins v. Grant, ante, p. 196. 1 Dunlap’s Pr. 337. 3 Bos. & Pull. 23. n. (a) 2 Term Rep. 511. and n. (a)