Holt v. Winters

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York

Decided February 23, 1887.)

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York · decided 1887-02-23

<p>Costs — Skourtty for — N'os-ltKsrDTBXou.</p> <p>Where defendant moved lor an order on the plaintiff to furnislqsecurity for costs, because plaintiff was not a resident oí the state oí TN'ew York, and it appeared that plaintiff was sot up in the proceedings as such resident, and on all the papers nothing appeared but that he was so set up properly and correctly, the motion was denied.</p>

2 counsel of record

Relies on Hobbs v. McLean

Decided 1887-02-23

¶1Costs — Skourtty for — N'os-ltKsrDTBXou.

¶2Where defendant moved lor an order on the plaintiff to furnislqsecurity for costs, because plaintiff was not a resident oí the state oí TN'ew York, and it appeared that plaintiff was sot up in the proceedings as such resident, and on all the papers nothing appeared but that he was so set up properly and correctly, the motion was denied.

¶3In iSquity.

¶4 *30Ellison & Gill, for plaintiff.

¶5Foster & Wilson, for defendant.

¶6Wheeler, J.

¶7The defendant moves for an order on the plaintiff to furnish security for costs, because he is not a resident of the state of New York. He is set up in the proceedings as such resident. On all the papers it does not appear but that he is so set up properly and correctly. The motion is therefore denied. This is not intended to imply that the motion would be granted if he was shown to be a non-resident.