Case Name: Annette G. Christian agt. Edward H. Gouge and another
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1880-02
Citations: 58 How. Pr. 445
Docket Number: 
Parties: Annette G. Christian agt. Edward H. Gouge and another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 445–446

Head Matter:
SUPERIOR COURT.
Annette G. Christian agt. Edward H. Gouge and another.
Security for costs—Non-resident plaintiff not permitted to prosecute informa pomperis.
It seems that the statute permitting a plaintiff to prosecute as a poor person is not intended to apply to non-residents, hut was solely for the benefit of residents of the state.
Special Term, February, 1880.
Prior to the commencement of the action the plaintiff filed her petition for leave to prosecute in forma pomperis and permission was given so to do.
After issue the defendant, upon an affidavit stating that the plaintiff was a non-resident, made a motion to set aside the order permitting the plaintiff to prosecute m forma pauperis, and to compel her to file security for costs.
Ambrose Monell, for defendant,
in support of the motion, contended that the statute permitting a plaintiff to prosecute as a poor person was not intended to apply to non-residents, but was solely for the benefit of residents of the state, and cited Brown agt. Story (1 Paige, 588), Isnard agt. Cazeau (1 id., 39), Moore agt. Cooley (2 Hill, 412), Thomas agt. Wilson (6 Hill, 257).
Jcumes B. Bill, for plaintiff.

Opinion:
Sedgwick, J.
The letter and policy of the acts in relation to security to be given by non-resident plaintiffs indicate that it is not unjust or impolitic to refuse leave to a non-resident to sue here, unless he gives security for costs even though, in fact, he is pecuniarily responsible. He must furnish some one who will respond for him in this state. If he cannot, the state does not furnish him means of pursuing a remedy here.
It seems to me inconsistent with this policy that an irresponsible non-resident should be allowed to sue without even a liability for costs.
I am of opinion that the order allowing the plaintiff to sue m forma pauperis should be vacated; but as the action was begun under the order relieving her from costs, &c., she should have an election to discontinue without costs. On this motion she cannot be required to give security.