Securities
Holt v. Winters
30 F. 29·United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York·1887
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Holt v. Winters.
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
February 23, 1887.)
Costs — Skourtty for — N'os-ltKsrDTBXou.
Where defendant moved lor an order on the plaintiff to furnislqsecurity for costs, because plaintiff was not a resident oí the state oí TN'ew York, and it appeared that plaintiff was sot up in the proceedings as such resident, and on all the papers nothing appeared but that he was so set up properly and correctly, the motion was denied.
In iSquity.
Ellison & Gill, for plaintiff.
Foster & Wilson, for defendant.
[MAJORITY — Wheeler, J.]
Wheeler, J.
The defendant moves for an order on the plaintiff to furnish security for costs, because he is not a resident of the state of New York. He is set up in the proceedings as such resident. On all the papers it does not appear but that he is so set up properly and correctly. The motion is therefore denied. This is not intended to imply that the motion would be granted if he was shown to be a non-resident.