Casey v. Horton

Citations

• 36 Ill. 234

Syllabus

<p>1. Suit in attachment—bond for costs—non-resident. 'The first section of the cost act in all cases requires a plaintiff or person for whose use the action is brought, if a non-resident, to file a bond for costs. The act is sufficiently comprehensive in terms to and does embrace a suit in attachment.</p> <p>2. Same. The State has the right to impose all reasonable and necessary requirements for the protection of the officers of justice from loss of their feos, by the litigation of non-resident parties. The requirement of a bond for costs from a non-resident plaintiff is reasonable.</p> <p>3. Attachment act—does not repeal the cost ant. The condition in the attachment bond, required by the statute, that the plaintiff shall pay all costs which may be awarded to the defendant, or to others interested in the proceeding, is not so broad as the provision in the first section of the cost act, nor ■does it conflict with or repeal it by implication.</p> <p>4. Bond eor costs, and attachment bond — their provisions. The condition of the bond for costs is for the payment of all costs which may accrue in ¡the action, either to the opposite party or to any of the officers of court, whilst the attachment bond is only for the costs that may be awarded to the defendant or any person interested in the proceeding. The officers of court have no interest in the proceeding, and their costs are not secured by the attachment bond.</p> <p>5. Nos-besidents— when they may sue. Held, that non-resident plaintiffs can only sue in our courts, whatever the nature of the action, by giving a bond for costs, in conformity with the cost act.</p>