Case ID: f-cas_7/html/1135-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "(K.ILTX, Chief Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 4,106.
    DUANE v. RIND.
    [1 Cranch, C. C. 281.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    Dec. Term, 1805.
    Security foh Costs.
    If the plaintiff has not a domicil in this district, he may be ruled to give security for costs.
    [Cited in Miller’s Adm’r v. Norfolk & W. R-Co., 47 Fed. 265.]
    Motion, by the defendant, for a rule on the plaintiff, to give security for costs, on the ground that the plaintiff is a non-resident. The facts admitted were that the plaintiff has a large bookstore in this city, and occasionally resides here during the winter, has a «family, and now resides at Philadelphia. His family never has resided here. He has a storekeeper here. The marshal has applied at the store and received pay for fees regularly. See Act Md. 1796, c. 43, § 12.
   THE COURT

(K.ILTX, Chief Judge,

absent) was of opinion that the rule ought to be laid. The act- of assembly, 1796 (chapter 43, § 12), must be understood to refer to the domicil, the place where the party resides, with his wife and children, if he has any.