PRIVATION DES DROITS CIVIIS
urgo his claim, he is more in the position of a defendant than in that of a plaintif; but might the same be said of most plaintiffs, and particularly in actions of revendication, trespass, damages, &ec.
13. Lorsqu'une partie a droit de demander caution pour les frais, elle peut, soit présenter sa requête en vacance dans les quatre jours, ou en donner avis dans ce délai, et ensuite le demander par motion au terme suivant.— Mantha et
à Coghlan, IIT R. L,, 449.
14. Le maître d’un vaisseau étranger qui a son domicile hors de la province, mais qui est temporairement dans ses limites, lors de l'institution de l’action, doit fournir caution lorsqu'il est demandeur.— Grace vs Crawford, IIT R. L.,447.
15. L'absence temporaire de cette province du défendeur, quand sa famille
continue d’y demeurer, ne l’oblige pas à donner cautionnement pour sûreté des $ \
frais en vertu d: l’art, 29 du code civil.— Mountain vs Walker, V KR. L., 747.
16, L'absence temporaire du demandeur, lorsque sa famille continue à résit'ar dans la province, ne l’oblige pas au cautionnement judicatum solvi.— Mountain vs Walker, V R. L,, 747.
17. A plaintiff, residing out of the province, cannot be compelled to give secu-
Arity for costs, nor can his attorney ad litem be compelled to produce his power of attorney, on an issue raised by the plaintiff contesting the opposants opposition.— Webster vs Philbrick, and Wilkie, opp., XV L. C. J., 242.
18. An incidental plaintiff, residing beyond the limits of the province of Que-
Mhec, will be held to give security for costs upon his incidental demand.— David-
son vs Cameron, XV L, C. J., 217.
19, After the allowance of an appeal to Her Majesty in Her Privy Council, an order to put in new security, (one of them being insolvent and the other having eft the province) will be granted by this court, but this court cannot dismiss
the appeal, in case such new security be not duly put in.—Johnson vs Connolly,
NVI L. C. J., 100.
0, À guardian against whom a rule for contrainte pur corps has issued, at the nstance of a party absent from Lower Canada, is entitled to security for costs,
under article 29 of the civil code.— Miller vs Bourgeois, XVI L,. C. T., 196.
1. Where of two Hu, not co-partners, and between whom no soliduité exists, one leaves the country after suit brought, security for costs can be
lemanded only from the absent plaintiff.— Humbert vs Mignot, XVIII L. C.J., DO, 0]
», L'offre de déposer une somme d'argent en cour, sans en spécifier le monant, où de donner cautionnement en faveur du défendeur par Énoitièque sur es immeubles du demandeur situés dans la province, ne peut suppléer au caujonnement judicahun soli.— "The Canadian C. P. Co. vs Shaw, XIX L, C.J,,99, 3, Where one of two plaintiffs is resident abroad, and the other in this proince, the court will not compel the absent plaintiff to give security for costs.— Beaudry vs Fleck, XX L,. C. j 304.
%, An Ontario Insurance Company, though doing business in Montreal, is
bound to give security for costs.— The Niagara District, &e., vs Macfarlane, XXI
.C. J., 224, %, Under the insolvent law, a creditor who has no domicile in the province
f Quobec, is not bound to give security for costs, though he has sued out a writ f attach ment.— Reed vs Larochelle, TIT Q. I, R., 93,
26, A foreign Insurance Company which has a place of business in the proince of Quebec, is not bound to give security for costs.— Globe Mutusl Ins. Co. f N. Y. vs Sun Mutual Ins. Co., I L. N., 53.
