Opinion

Foster v. Swasey

  • 9 F. Cas. 579
  • 10 Law Rep. 32
Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
Filed
Oct 15, 1846
Status
Published
Author
Woodbury
On the bench
Woodbury
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 50.1%

The opinion

WOODBURY, Circuit Justice.

The motion is refused, because it is so late. The place-of the plaintiff’s residence appears in the bill, and was known several terms ago. 1 Daniels, Eq. Prac. 36, 41; 3 Johns. Ch. 520 . The motion, therefore, should have been made-before so much cost was incurred, and the case ready for a hearing. A motion of this kind, too, is granted only when the party is a resident abroad. Newl. Ch. Pr. 410. Cases exist where being resident in Ireland or Scot *581 land has been regarded as abroad for this purpose. But those countries are under distinct judicial tribunals, and in some respects under different laws; while in this case the plaintiff resides, not out of the United States, nor even out of this circuit, but in the state of Maine. I think it would, at this late day in the case, and under the circumstances of his living within this circuit, be unjustifiable to require him to furnish security as coming either within our practice or that of England. The 44th rule provides, if the plaintiff lives without the state, the defendant may require security for cost, if moving it at the first term. But the motion is not made in season to come within this rule, and being founded only on the general practice in chancery, must by that be refused.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.