Holt v. Tennallytown & Rockville Railroad

Citations

• 81 Md. 219
• 31 A. 809
• 1895 Md. LEXIS 51

Syllabus

<p>Rule Security for Costs.— Constitutiotial Law.</p> <p>The provisions of Code, Art. 24, sec. 9, requiring non-resident plaintiffs to give security for costs, when a rule is laid upon them, is not in conflict with Art. 4, sec. 2 of the Constitution of the United States, concerning the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States.</p> <p>A rule security for costs laid upon the plaintiff in one Circuit Court, is subsequently enforceable in the Circuit Court of another county, to which the case is removed for trial; and the removal does not make any change in the time within which the plaintiff is required to comply with the rule.</p> <p>The right of a defendant to move for a judgment of non-suit for the failure of the plaintiff to comply with a rule security for costs, is not lost by a delay of eight months, but continues up to the time of trial.</p>