Whelan v. Manhattan Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1898 |
| Parties | WHELAN v. MANHATTAN RY. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Edwin G. Davis, for the motion.
Joseph A. Adams, opposed.
This motion is made upon an affidavit made by the plaintiff, which sets forth that she is a citizen of the United States resident in the state of New Jersey; that she is wholly destitute of means; that, because of her poverty, she is unable to pay the costs of this suit, or to give security for the same; and that she believes she is entitled to the redress she seeks by this action. This affidavit conforms to the requirements of section 1 of the act of July 20, 1892. That act, however, does not secure an unrestricted right to prosecute as a poor person. A preliminary investigation by the court is also provided for by section 4, which reads:
Upon attention being called to this provision, a further affidavit has been filed, which sets forth the facts which plaintiff expects to prove upon the trial. From this statement it appears that plaintiff was about to step on board the platform of one of defendant's cars which had stopped at a station; that there was room for her upon the platform that (the guard holding the gate open) she placed her right foot upon the platform, and had just raised her left foot from the station platform when the guard suddenly, and without warning, violently shoved the gate against the plaintiff, thrusting her from the platform of the car, and inflicting severe injuries. If this story be uncontradicted plaintiff would be entitled to go to the jury, and the alleged cause of action would certainly not be 'frivolous.' It seems, therefore, to be 'worthy of a trial,' within the language of section 4. The order requiring plaintiff to file security for costs should therefore be vacated. It remains, however, for the court to provide an attorney to represent the poor person. The act is most carefully framed to deal fairly with both sides. It will not allow an irresponsible person to prosecute, without incurring liability for costs, some frivolous or malicious cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the So. Dist. of Iowa
...to secure counsel for parties under § 1915(d). See Boyle v. Great Northern R. Co., 63 F. 539 (CC Wash.1894); Whelan v. Manhattan R. Co., 86 F. 219, 220-221 (CC SDNY 1898); Brinkley v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 95 F. 345, 353 (CC WD Tenn.1899); Phillips v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 153 F. 795 (CC ......
-
Peterson v. Nadler
...discretion the circumstances are such that would properly justify it. This right has long been recognized. Whelan v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 86 F. 219 (Cir.Ct. S.D.N.Y.1898).6 Such appointments may be rare but when made they are routinely authorized. See e.g., Massengale v. C. I. R., 408 F.2d 13......
-
Fletcher v. Young
...Louisville & N. R. Co., C.C., 95 F. 345, mandamus denied United States ex rel. Brinkley v. Hammond, 6 Cir., 100 F. 1006; Whelan v. Manhattan R. Co., C.C., 86 F. 219. Power to dismiss an action on motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) on the ground that it is frivolous is not limited or impaired ......
-
Brinkley v. Louisville & N. R. Co.
...be satisfied that the alleged cause of action is frivolous or malicious. ' Act July 20, 1892, c. 209, Sec. 4 (27 Stat. 252); Whelan v. Railroad Co., supra. might have been assigned in this case if the plaintiff, exercising his statutory right to plead and manage his own cause personally, ha......