The Our Friend
The Our Friend
Opinion of the Court
This is a petition to compel the owner of the libelant sloop to enter security for costs. It appears that on or about the 30th day of May, 1904, the tug Majestic collided with libel-ant’s sloop, as a result of which the sloop was totally wrecked, and her tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with the provisions and other articles aboard, were destroyed, the total value of which is claimed to be $600. The libelant, in his libel, alleges that, by reason of his poverty, he is unable to defray the expense of litigation, and prays that process may issue and be served in forma pauperis, in accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress of July 20, 1892, c. 209, § 1, 27 Stat. 252 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 706]. The petition filed by respondent, requesting that the libelant be required to enter security, avers that the libelant paid $500 for the sloop, for the destruction of which he seeks to recover in this suit, and that he was engaged in the
As there is no evidence here to sustain an allegation that the libelant has subsequently to the bringing of the suit become possessed of sufficient property to enable him to pay the costs or enter security for the same, the petition is dismissed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- THE OUR FRIEND. THE MAJESTIC
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Admiealtt— Collision — Libel in Fobma Paupebis. Where libelant, in a proceeding in admiralty for collision resulting in the loss of libelant’s sloop, tackle, apparel, and furniture, alleged that by reason of his poverty he was unable to defray the expense of litigation, and prayed that process might issue and be served in forma pauperis, as authorized by Act Cong. July 20, 1892, c. 209, § 1, 27 Stat. 252 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 700], and there was no proof that libelant’s sworn statement as to his poverty was false, the fact that he purchased the sloop for 8500 was insufficient to establish that he possessed property at the time the suit was instituted, or had acquired any since that time, justifying the court in requiring him to give security for costs.