Case ID: miles_2/html/0086-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CANTELO v. BINNS.
    April 8, 1837.
    
      Rule to show came why plaintiff should not give security for costs.
    
    Security for costs will not be required of a plaintiff on the mere ground of his non-residence in this state, where the application is made after the cause has been arbitrated by the plaintiff, and the defendant having appeared before the arbitrators, has appealed, and the cause is at issue and on the trial list.
    THIS was an action brought to June term, 1832. The plaintifi had always resided in the state of New York. The cause was at issue and on the trial list, and the defendant had appealed from an award of arbitrators, before whom he had appeared. The defendant, on filing an affidavit as to the non-residence, obtained this rule to show cause.
    On the hearing of the rule,
    
      Randall, for defendant,
    relied on the 26th rule of the court, (1 Miles 450,) and on the practice which he said had existed in the courts of this state under similar rules. He cited Tidd's Practice: 2 Dali. 179; 4 Wash, ('. C. Rep, 385.
    
      Meredith, contra.
   Pee Curiam.

This application comes too late. The defendant has taken part in the proceedings by joining in the issue, and has appeared before arbitrators, from whose award he has appealed. A party will not be permitted, after these proceedings and the lapse of time exhibited here, to demand security for costs of the plaintiff, on the mere ground of non-residence.

Rule discharged.