Henning v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
Decision Date | 19 December 1889 |
Citation | 40 F. 658 |
Parties | HENNING v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Buist & Buist and John Wingate, for plaintiff.
Barker Gilliland & Fitzsimons, for defendant.
This case was originally brought in the state court. It was removed into this court, plaintiff being a resident of the state of South Carolina, and the defendant being a foreign corporation. After its removal the plaintiff obtained leave to amend his complaint by inserting the appointment and the name of his guardian ad litem, and defendant had leave to answer the complaint when so amended. Thereupon defendant under our seventy-fifth rule, served notice for security for costs. The plaintiff resists this motion, because he is a resident of the state of South Carolina, and as such not liable to security for costs in the state court, and therefore not so liable in this court, into which the case comes precisely in the same plight in which it left the state court. Duncan v. Gegan, 101 U.S. 812. This seems to be a new question. It must be decided under our own rule which controls our practice. Rule 75 is in these words:
The rule is without qualification,-- 'in no case.' Is it affected by the fact that before the case came into this court the plaintiff was under no obligation whatever to give security for costs? The act of congress regulating the removal of causes provides that, when removed, 'the cause shall then proceed in the same manner as if it had been originally commenced in said circuit court.' 25 St. at Large, 435. If the cause proceeds as if it began in this court, it is, of course, subject to the rules of the court governing causes begun therein, just as if the cause originally began here. Clare v. Bank, 14 Blatchf. 445. Besides this, the complaint has been amended in this court. The cause will be tried and decided upon the amended complaint, (Code S.C. 167;) that is to say, upon pleadings made up in this court, and governed by its rules only. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Galloway v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 4475.
...(c), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c; Wilcox & Gibbs Guano Co. v. Phoenix Insurance Co., C.C., 61 F. 199, 200; Henning v. Western Union Telegraph Co., C.C., 40 F. 658. While the general rule is to the effect that one may not appeal from a verdict generally in his favor, or from that port......
-
Williams v. Sawyer Bros.
...Insurance Co. (C. C.) 31 F. 625; Clare v. National City Bank, 14 Blatchf. 445, Fed. Cas. No. 2,793. See, also, Henning v. Western Union Tel. Co. (C. C.) 40 F. 658. It is true that in removed cases contrary views have prevailed elsewhere. Trinidad Asphalt Paving Co. v. Robinson (C. C.) 52 F.......
- Perkins v. Hendryx
-
Sawyer v. Williams
... ... themselves, if not paid. Henning v. Telegraph Co., ... 40 F. 658 ... It has ... been urged ... ...