Caton v. Harmon
Decision Date | 31 December 1839 |
Parties | JOHN DEAN CATON, appellant,v.ISAAC HARMON, who sues for the use of Lemuel C. P. Freer, appellee. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of Chicago.
Where an action is brought by a non-resident, for the use of a resident, no security for costs is required.
CITED: Affidavit, when defective. 51 Ill. 308. Security for costs, doctrine as to. 11 Ill. 120; 93 Ill. 29.
THIS cause was heard in the Court below at the April term, 1838, before the Hon. Thomas Ford. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to this Court.
G. SPRING and GRANT GOODRICH, for the appellant.
J. GRANT and J. Y. SCAMMON, for the appellee.
This was an action of assumpsit brought in the Municipal Court of the City of Chicago, by Isaac Harmon, for the use of Lemuel C. P. Freer, against John D. Caton. The defendant below moved the Court to dismiss the cause, predicated upon the following affidavit:
The suit was brought for the use of Freer, and he was the person beneficially interested. Nothing in the affidavit showing that Freer was a non-resident, it is to be strongly inferred that he was a resident. In all cases in law or equity where the plaintiff or person for whose use an action is to be commenced shall not be a resident of this State, the plaintiff or person for whose use the action is commenced shall, before he institute such suit, file, or cause to be filed, with the clerk of the Circuit or Supreme Court in which the action is to be commenced, an instrument in writing of some responsible person, being a resident of this State, to be approved of by the clerk, whereby such person shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Warren
...statute allows municipal corporations to appeal without giving bond, cited R. S., Ch. 110, § 71; Emerson v. Clark, 2 Scam. 490; Caton v. Harmon, 1 Scam. 581; Brockway v. Rowley, 66 Ill. 99. Payment of the fines to Kyle was a breach of the bond, and defendants are liable for the $198, unless......
-
Jenkins v. Chicago
...was only nominal plaintiff, and hence this is not a suit between an assignee and a third party: Rev. Stat. Chap. 33, § 19; Caton v. Harmon, 1 Scam. 581; Buckmaster v. Beames, 3 Gilm. 1; Triplett v. Scott, 12 Ill. 137; Smith v. Robinson, 11 Ill. 119; Robertson v. Co. Commissioners, 5 Gilm. 5......
-
Jenkins v. Pope
...suit is brought, for the purpose of giving security for costs, as the real party instituting it. And the same is the principle of Caton v. Harmon, 1 Scam. 581, where it was held that where a nominal plaintiff is non-resident, and the beneficial plaintiff is resident, security for costs is n......
-
O'connell v. Rea
... ... In Caton v. Harmon, who sues for the use of Freer, 1 Scam. 581, it was held, as the affidavit for the rule to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed ... ...