Case ID: f-cas_23/html/0986-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CRANCH, Chief Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 13,917.
    THOMAS v. WOODHOUSE.
    [1 Cranch, C. C. 341.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    July Term, 1806.
    Practice at Law — Security for Costs — Notice.
    The defendant may. at the trial-court, give notice to a non-resident plaintiff, that security for costs will be required, and the cause will he continued if the plaintiff is not ready to give the security.
    Mr. Swann and E. J. Lee, for plaintiff.
    Mr. Taylor and Mr. Hiort, for defendant.
   THE COURT continued this cause to enable the defendant to give notice (according to law of Virginia, P. P. Ill), that security for costs will be required.

CRANCH, Chief Judge,

contri, thought that the law did not intend that the plaintiff should be defeated of his trial, unless sixty days' notice had already been gi’-en.