Case Name: ZIMMERMAN et al. v. MENDENHALL
Court: Philadelphia District Court
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1840-04-21
Citations: 2 Miles 402
Docket Number: 
Parties: ZIMMERMAN et al. v. MENDENHALL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases determined in the district court for the city and county of Philadelphia
Volume: 2
Pages: 402–402

Head Matter:
ZIMMERMAN et al. v. MENDENHALL.
April 21, 1840.
Rule to show cause why plaintiff should not give security far costs.
Two of three plaintiffs in an action lived in Buenos Ayres, and the third resided in this state at the time of the institution of the suit: Held, that the defendant was not entitled to security for costs under the 26th rule of this court.
THIS suit was brought to March term, 1840, No. 590. The defendant filed an affidavit of defence; and, on filing proof that two of the three plaintiffs were, at the institution of the suit, residents of Buenos Ayres, the court granted a rule on the plaintiffs to show cause why they should not give security for costs. It appeared that the third defendant resided in this state.
Henderson, for the rule.

Opinion:
The Court
said that the rule of court did not apply to this case, and security for costs would not be ordered in cases where any one of the plaintiffs resided in this state, on the ground that the others resided out of it. (See 1 Miles 450, 321.)
Rule discharged.