36 F.1d 307 - Stewart v. The Sun — 36 F. 307

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 2015

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.

¶1Costs — Security eor Costs — Time or Motion.

¶2Tlie federal courts may require security for costs from solvent non-resident plaintiffs at any time when no prejudice to plaintiffs’ rights is shown to have resulted from defendant’s delay in moving.

¶3On Motion for Security for Costs.

¶4E. D. Benedict, for complainants.

¶5Saclcett & Bennett, for Tribune Association.

¶6Franklin & Clifford and A. H. Bartlett, for the Sun.

¶7Lacombe, J.

¶8The state courts which refuse to require security for costs from a non-resident plaintiff, where defendant has delayed moving until after answer is served, also hold that impecunious non-residents may not sue informa pauperis. In this court such plaintiffs are allowed this privilege; and an equitable application of the doctrine of Heckman v. Mackey, 32 Fed. Rep. 574, would seem to warrant the court in requiring security from solvent non-resident plaintiffs at any time, — at least when no special prejudice to plaintiffs’ rights is shown to have resulted from defendant’s delay in moving. Defendant in each case may take an order requiring plaintiffs to file security in the amount of $500.