Northrop v. Wright

Headnote

On a motion that plaintiff file security for costs, the defendant will not be allowed as a general rule to have the amount increased over $250, where it appears the cause has been through along course of litigation and the amount of costs is large. A plaintiff non resident, although compelled to bring an action of ejectment, by reason of a claim of title instituted under the statute by defendant is nevertheless required to file' security for costs.

Motion by defendant that plaintiff file security for costs in this cause.— The defendant, William Wright, served on plaintiff, Rodolphus E. Northrop, a claim under the act entitled, “ Proceedings to compel the determination of claims to real property in certain cases,” part 3, chapter 5, title 2, of the Revised Statutes, on the 24th December, 1833. On the 9th August, 1843, an order was made by this court1"as follows :

“ William Wright, demandant vs. Rodolphus E. Northrop, claimant."

On motion on the part of demandant, ordered that the default of said Rodolphus be and the same is hereby entered, with leave to claimant to commence an action of ejectment under the statute within twenty days after service of notice of this rule.”—In pursuance of said rule a declaration was filed on the 8th September, 1834, and a copy served. On the 23d of September aforesaid, a plea was served. The cause was several times noticed, and finally tried at the circuit on the 27th March, 1837, and a verdict rendered for the claimant, Rodolphus E. Northrop, for an undivided part of the premises as claimed in the declaration. Wright the demandant, made a case and brought it before this court, which was decided at July term, 1841: new trial denied. Judgment was docketed against Wright for the amount of the verdict and costs, which was by Wright, onjhe bill of exceptions, carried to the court of errors, and was decided in that court on the 26th December, 1844 : judgment reversed and venire de novo directed to issue, costs to abide event. Northrop insisted he should not be required to file security for costs, for the reason that he had acted on the defensive ; that all the proceedings on his part

had arisen out of the demand made by Wright. Wright showed that the plaintiff, Northrop, at the time of the commencement of this suit and ever since, had been and then was a non-resident of this state, and a resident of the state of Connecticut; and insisted that under the circumstances of this case, the costs having accumulated to a large amount, a bond for more than $250 should be required of plaintiff. The plaintiff, in reply, insisted that the practice had been uniform, and no more than what the statute required, had ever been ordered to be given.