{
  "id": 2558772,
  "name": "Calvin Ripley, plaintiff in error, v. Buckner S. Morris, defendant in error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ripley v. Morris",
  "decision_date": "1845-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "381",
  "last_page": "383",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "2 Gilm. 381"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 Ill. 381"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 3983,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.625,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.326814039442224e-07,
      "percentile": 0.968615351705833
    },
    "sha256": "4eab3c4a809823241d1bbcb3842c3753ee1b16d6a5971bc6d244bc8d06ab2710",
    "simhash": "1:dbe5d58c342f39dd",
    "word_count": 705
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:07.878345+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Calvin Ripley, plaintiff in error, v. Buckner S. Morris, defendant in error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "The Opinion of the Court was delivered by\nLockwood, J.\nThe motion is granted. A Writ,of Error, like a Scire Facias, is considered as a new action. 2 Tidd\u2019s Pr. 1141; and the statute relative to costs requires the Court to dismiss the suit, whenever a non-resident commences an action, either in the Circuit or Supreme Court, without filing security for the costs.\nDismissed at the cost of the plaintiff in error.\nMotion alloived.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Lockwood, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. B. Thomas, for the defendant in error.",
      "J. Butterfield, for the plaintiff in error,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Calvin Ripley, plaintiff in error, v. Buckner S. Morris, defendant in error.\nrr J n 7 Jhrror to Uoo/c.\nA Writ of Error, like a Scire Facias, is considered as anew action.\nThe statute relative to costs requires the Court to dismiss the suit whenever a non resident commences an action, either in the Circuit or Supreme Court, without filing security for the costs.\nIn this case, a motion was made to dismiss the writ of error, because no bond for costs had been filed. The motion was based upon the affidavit of the defendant in error, stating that the plaintiff in error was, when the writ was sued out, and still is, a non-resident.\nThe counsel for the plaintiff in error admitted the fact of non-residence, and entered a cross motion for leave to file a bond for costs. The application was resisted by the defendant in error.\nJ. B. Thomas, for the defendant in error.\nThis proceeding is an action within the meaning of the first section of the \u201c\u00bflet concerning costs,\u201d (R. L. 165, 6,) the term then and there being, \u201cand in all cases in law or equity;\u201d and that law intends to prohibit the institution and prosecution of any suit by a non-resident, in a Circuit Court or the Supreme Court of this State.\nIt embraces two classes of cases.\n1. When a plaintiff, being a non-resident, sues;\n2. When a resident sues, and afterwards becomes nonresident.\nIn the first case, the bond must be filed before the suit is commenced, and in default thereof, the suit must be dismissed. In the other, the bond must not be filed until the plaintiff has become non-resident. The first part goes to the plaintiff\u2019s disability to commence, and the other, to prosecute without the requisite security for costs.\nThe requisition to givx bond is co-existent and contemporaneous with the fact : 1 non-residence, but not prior thereto. Hence# the action of .the Court in the premises must have-reference to the date of plaintiff\u2019s disability. If it existed when he commenced his suit, the Court cannot invest him with a right not existing at that time, and must dismiss his suit; but a disability commencing after institution of the suit may not carry with it any retrospective prejudice to the plaintiff, if he will do by the rule of Court, what, if his disability had existed before he commenced his suit, he would have been required by law to do.\nThe plaintiff in error, by asking leave-to file'his bond, acknowledges the obligation resting on him by law to do so. This is the only law imposing-such obligation, and, therefore, this case-is conceded to come within its.provisions.\nBut to deny the construction contended for by defendant in error, \u00a1 would render .inoperative the requisitions of the law, that bonds be filed in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court, when suit is commenced in that Court. The suits contemplated by the Act to be commenced in the Supreme Court are necessarily of an appellate character, as between individuals. State Const. Art. IV. \u00a7 2, as to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. .\nThis statute was made for the benefit as well of the officers of the Court -as of the party. .\nA Writ of Error is a new action, not a continuation of one already commenced. 2 Tidd\u2019s Pr. 1141.\nA Writ of Error is an action and may be released by the name of an action. 2 Bac. Abr. title \"Error,\u201d 488; Coke on Lit. 288, b.\nJ. Butterfield, for the plaintiff in error,\nresisted the motion to dismiss the suit, and argued his cross motion, contending that a writ of error was a continuation of' the suit commenced in the Circuit Court, and not a new suit."
  },
  "file_name": "0381-01",
  "first_page_order": 397,
  "last_page_order": 399
}