Case Name: Marjorie W. Speakman et al., complainants, v. International Pulverizing Corporation, a corporation of New Jersey, et al., defendants
Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1936-01-21
Citations: 119 N.J. Eq. 591
Docket Number: 
Parties: Marjorie W. Speakman et al., complainants, v. International Pulverizing Corporation, a corporation of New Jersey, et al., defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 591–592

Head Matter:
Marjorie W. Speakman et al., complainants, v. International Pulverizing Corporation, a corporation of New Jersey, et al., defendants.
[Decided January 21st, 1936.]
Mr. Joseph Beck Tyler, for the complainants.
Mr. Louis B. LeDuc, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Davis, V. C.
Two of the complainants in this cause are residents of this state and four are non-residents. The defendants have applied for an order requiring the non-resident complainants to give security for costs in accordance with section 8 of the Chancery act (Revision of 1902). 1 Comp. Stat. p. 413.
In the case of Jones v. Knauss, 33 N. J. Eq. 188, Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet held that a non-resident complainant will not be required to give security for costs if he is joined with a resident complainant, which practice seems to have been followed in this court.
The statute in effect at the time Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet wrote his opinion in Jones v. Knauss, supra, was section 17 of the Chancery act (Revision of 1875), Rev. of N. J. p. 106. This latter statute, so far as the question to be determined is concerned, is identical with the present statute. In support of the motion the defendants have cited the recent cases of Kearney v. Baptist (Circuit Court, 1932), 10 N. J. Mis. R. 431; 159 Atl. Rep. 405, and Marino v. Shiff Realty Co. (Common Pleas, Union. County, 1933), 11 N. J. Mis. R. 96; 164 Atl. Rep. 577, construing section 204 of the Practice act (Revision of 1903; 3 Comp. Stat. p. 4115); both of these eases relate to security in an action at law where a nonresident plaintiff was joined with a resident plaintiff.
I do not feel that the law, as heretofore established in this court, is affected by the latter two cases which relate to actions at law alone.
The motion will be dismissed.