¶1This is not a case coming within the spirit of the 14th rule of January term, 1/99. That rule contemplates a suit originating in this court. The' plaintiff in error came to this court, not to enforce, a demand, but to avoid a judgment which he supposed had been erroneously given in the court below. Although the bringing a writ of error js considered as a new action, yet it is not the commencement of such a suit as comes witfiin the ride by which the attorney can be made responsible for the costs. It never has been supposed that in a, case like this, a non-resident plaintiff was obliged to file a bond; and it ¡s qply when a bond ought to have been filed, that the attorney is answerable for the costs. If there had been an application to the court to stay the proceedings on the writ of error, it is probable the proceedings would have been stayed, until security for costs had been given. The motion is denied'
8 Johns. 353
Frary v. Dakin
Decided August 15, 1811
New York Supreme Court · decided 1811-08-15
RODMAN, for the defendant in error, moved that the . plaintiff s attorney pay the costs on error, in the above • , _ . - , YT . cause, amounting to 164 dollars and 94 cents, lie read an affidavit, stating, that a judgment had been obtained in the mayor’s court of Hudson, in favour of Dakin, against Fraru, for 341 dollars and 81 cents; and that ° J1 before the judgment was rendered, the defendant below™ J , . removed out of the’state, mio Canada, where he has since resided,…
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1855
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1811-08-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →