Case Name: Harris v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-03-13
Citations: 13 N.Y.S. 718
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harris v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 13
Pages: 718–720

Head Matter:
Harris v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
March 13, 1891.
1. Security for Costs—Suits in Forma Pauperis.
The court has power in a proper case to allow a non-resident plaintiff to sue as a poor person. Daniels, J., dissenting. Affirming 10 N. =Y. Supp. 473.
2. Same—Appointment of Attorney.
The attorney making the application should not be assigned as counsel, except in exceptional cases, and then only where it clearly appears that the party seeking to sue as a poor person knows that the counsel assigned is bound to act without compensation, and where the counsel certifies that he will so act, and that no charge or claim for counsel fees will be made. ,
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Action byFranzisea Harris against the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York and others. Defendant company appeals from order denying motion to vacate order allowing plaintiff to maintain the action as a poor person.
Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Daniels and O’Brien, JJ.
Davies, Short & Townsend, for appellants. Christopher Fine, for respondent.

Opinion:
Van Brunt, P. J.
The court undoubtedly has the power to make an order allowing a non-resident to sue as a poor person; but such an order, even in the case of a resident, should not be granted except in a reasonably clear case, and where it is réasonably certain that the process of the court will not be abused, and it may well be doubted whether the case at bar. falls within that category; but the court should not assign as counsel the attorney making the application, except in exceptional cases, and then only where it clearly appears that the party seeking to sue as a poor person knows that the counsel assigned is bound to act in the action without compensation, and where the counsel certifies to the court that he will so act, and that no charge or claim for counsel fees by anybody will be made. In most cases, however, in order to prevent abuses, a person entirely disconnected with the proceeding should be appointed, who will see that improper use is not made of the privilege granted. I think, therefore, that the order appealed from should be reversed, with leave to the plaintiff to make a new application.
O'Brien, J., concurs.