9. Costs. The costs in proceedings for the removal of a pauper, both before the justices and on appeal, are as a rule governed by statute.1 pauper widow and family" may be amended on appeal by inserting the names of her children. Chillisquaque v. Lewisburg, 2 Penny. (Pa.) 487. Maintenance Pending Appeal. Where an appeal from an order of removal is sustained, and a sum is awarded by the court to the appellant for costs and charges, the court may at the same session, if demand is then made, award such additional sum as will reimburse the appellant for the amount paid for the relief of the pauper between the time of removal and the determination of the appeal. But if no such demand be made at the same session, the right to recover such sum is not lost; a claim therefor may subsequently be allowed and filed by the court. Huntingdon Tp. v. New Columbus, 109 Pa. St. 579. See also Overseers of Poor v. Overseers of Poor, (Pa. 1886) 4 Atl. Rep. 732. Dismissal of Appeal. An appeal taken from an order of removal, and entered four days afterwards at the opening of the term of the court to which it was taken, should not be dismissed two days after its entry on motion of the appellee, but the cause should be continued. Chester v. Londonderry, 51 Vt. 535. Reversal of Order-Removal Back. Where the order for the removal of a pauper from one town to another is reversed and quashed on appeal, the justices of the peace of the town to 672 which the pauper was improperly removed may make an order for his removal back to the town from which he was removed, or if it appears that the pauper has no settlement in that town they may make a new original order for his removal to the place of his last legal settlement. Rouse v. Moore, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 407. 1. See Overseers of Poor v. Overseers of Poor, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 588. And see Overseers of Poor v. Overseers of Poor, I Johns. (N. Y.) 330; St. Clair v. Moon, 6 W. & S. (Pa.) 522. Costs on Partial Quashal. - Where on appeal an order of removal is in part confirmed and in part quashed, neither party is entitled to costs. Directors of Poor v. Guardians of Poor, 1 S. & R. (Pa.) 387. Costs on Acceptance of Pauper. - In Pennsylvania the poor laws do not provide for costs or charges of a pauper removed by order of two justices to his last and legal settlement, where he is accepted and no appeal is taken. Schuylkill v. Montour, 44 Pa. St. 484. Agreement as to Costs. Where the parties to an appeal from an order of removal of a pauper which was pending in the County Court agreed that the suit should be discontinued, and that the defendants should pay to the plaintiffs the "costs which had accrued, it was held that this did not include the expense of maintaining the pauper after the order of removal was made. Brookfield v. Braintree, 21 Vt. 447. Remedy for Enforcement. In Pennsylvania it was held that the liability for costs in removal proceedings is enforceable by petition to the Court of Quarter Sessions. Directors of Poor v. Overseers of Poor, 91 Pa. St. 431. See also Schuylkill v. Montour, 44 Pa. St. 484. Volume XVI. POOR PERSONS. BY E. A. CRAighill, Jr. I. PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 675. 2. To What Persons Privilege Extends, 676. b. Infants, 679. c. Married Women, 681. d. Executors and Administrators, 681. e. Nonresidents, 682. 3. In What Proceedings Allowed, 683. a. In General, 683. b. Replevin, 684. c. Qui Tam Actions, 684. d. Criminal Cases, 684. 4. At What Time Application to Be Made, 684. a. In General, 684. b. Notice to Adverse Party, 685. 5. Affidavit or Oath, 686. a. By Whom Made, 686. (1) Generally, 686. (2) Infants, 686. (3) Husband and Wife, 686. b. Before Whom Made, 686. c. Form and Sufficiency, 687. (2) Amendment, 688. (3) Certificate of Counsel, 688. 6. Opposition to Application, 689. 7. To What Courts Order Extends, 689. 11. Dispaupering, 697. a. In General, 697. b. Ability to Pay Costs, 698. II. PROCEEDINGS UNDER POOR-DEBTOR ACTS, 698. 1. Furisdiction, 698. a. In General, 698. b. Selection of Justices, 700. c. Who Qualified to Act, 702. d. Jurisdiction Should Appear from Record, 703. 2. Who May Apply for Discharge, 703. 3. The Application, 705. 4. Notice or Citation to Creditor, 706. a. In General, 706. b. Form and Sufficiency, 707. (1) Compliance with Statute, 707. (3) Describing Execution, 709. (4) Appointing Time and Place, 709. c. Service, 710. (1) By Whom, 710. (2) On Whom, 711. (a) On the Creditor, 711. (b) On Creditor's Attorney or Agent, 711. (On Officer Who Made Arrest, 712. (3) When Served, 712. (4) Where Served, 713. (5) How Served, 714. (6) Return, 714 d. New Notice, 715. (1) How Soon Issued After Former Notice, 715. (2) Upon Change of Circumstances, 716. e. Waiver of Objections, 718. 5. Attendance of Parties and Magistrates, 718. a. Debtor, 718. b. Creditor, 720. c. Magistrates, 720. d. Time for Appearance, 721. 6. Adjournment, 722. 7. Examination and Disclosure, 723. b. Disposition of Property, 725. 8. The Oath, 727. 9. Record-Certificate of Discharge, 729. a. In General, 729. b. Certificate of Discharge, 729. c. Amendment, 731. d. Conclusiveness, 731. 10. Charges of Fraud, 732. b. Form and Sufficiency, 734. 11. Bond or Recognizance, 736. b. Effect Of, 737: c Who May Take, 737 d. Form and Sufficiency, 737. (1) Conformity with Statute, 737. e. Performance and Breach, 739- (2) Performance by Taking Oath, 740. f. Action on Bond, 741. (1) In General, 741. Declaration, 742. (3) Plea, 742. CROSS-REFERENCES. For other titles in this work treating of Poor Debtors, see ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS, vol. 2, p. 865; EXECUTIONS AGAINST the BODY AND arrest IN CIVIL CASES, vol. 8, p. 584; INSOLVENCY, vol. 11, p. 1; SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. generally article SECURITY FOR COSTS. And see - At I. PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS 1. Origin of Right. Common Law the right to prosecute or defend in forma pauperis had no existence; it originated in the statute 11 Henry VII., c. 12, which allowed pauper plaintiffs to sue without payment of costs. or fees. 1 * * 1. Oldfield v. Cobbett, 1 Phil. 613. In Roy v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 276, the court, in speaking of the right to sue in forma pauperis, said: At common law no plaintiff had any such right, it being a purely statutory privilege. By the statute 11 Henry VII., c. 12, for the first time paupers were allowed to sue as plaintiffs without paying these fees, which privilege they obtained by petition upon their affidavit of poverty and certificate of counsel that there was a good cause of action." In Harrison v. Stanton, 146 Ind. 366, the court said: "The common law did not authorize any one to sue in forma pauperis, and it was only in pursuance of the provisions of the statute of II Hen. VII., c. 12, that a plaintiff who was a pauper could be admitted to sue as a poor person. Tidd's Prac. 97. And by statute 23 Hen. VIII., c. 15, such person was exempt from the payment of cost to the defendant in an action of debt, in the event he was nonsuited or had a verdict returned against him; but he might be subjected to such other punishment as the justices before whom the action was pending might deem reasonable." Right Does Not Exist in Absence of Statute. In Campbell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 23 Wis. 490, it was held that where there was no statute authorizing a person to sue in forma pauperis, it was no abuse of discretion to dismiss, for want of security for costs, a cause In Equity the statutes giving to plaintiffs the right to sue in forma pauperis in courts of law have been followed in principle, and the relief has also been extended to defendants.1 2. To What Persons Privilege Extends-a. IN GENERAL. While, of course, the question as to who may take advantage of the acts allowing suits in forma pauperis depends in large measure upon the terms of the particular statute under which the application is made, still it may be stated as a general rule that the privilege will be extended to any person who can show that he has a good cause of action and from extreme poverty is unable to meet the expenses of the suit." 1. Oldfield v. Cobbett, 1 Phil. 613. In Ferguson v. Dent, 15 Fed. Rep. 771, the court said: "The common law, unlike the civil law, while allowing poor persons to sue in forma pauperis, did not permit them to defend in that form. I Tidd's Pr. (3d Am. ed.) 97, 98. And infant defendants were liable for costs, while the insolvency of a next friend did not throw the burden of costs on an infant plaintiff. Id. 99, 100. Courts of equity, however, like the civil law, made no distinction between plaintiffs and defendants in this respect, nor any between adults and infants. I Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th ed.) 37-44. 74. 75, 154, 156." 2. See the statutes, and see M'Clenahan v. Thomas, 2 Murph. (N. Car.) 247. See also Spalding v. Bainbridge, 12 R. I. 244. Federal Courts.- Under Act Cong. July 20, 1892, SS 1, 4, the court may allow a plaintiff to sue in forma pauperis upon his filing a proper affidavit of poverty and also an affidavit of facts showing that his cause of action is not frivolous. Whelan v. Manhattan R. Co., 86 Fed. Rep. 219. And the right to sue in forma pauperis was recognized in the federal courts even before the passage of that act. Bradford v. Bradford, 2 Flipp. (U. S.) 280. In Admiralty any person may sue without giving security for costs upon proof of his inability to do so. Wheatley v. Hotchkiss, 1 Sprague (U. S.) 225. Who Is a "Poor Person."- Code Civ. Pro. N. Y., § 459, defines the "poor person comprehended by its provisions to be one who " is not worth one hundred dollars besides the wearing apparel and furniture necessary for himself and his family, and the subject-matter of the action." McNamara v. Nolan, 13 Misc. Rep. (N. Y. C. Pl.) 76. Where a person's property is so encumbered that he is unable to raise money on it, either by mortgage or sale, and can get no one to go on his bond for costs, he is entitled to prosecute in forma pauperis under the Texas statute. Meyer v. Weber, (Tex. Civ. App. 1897) 40 S. W. Rep. 627. A plaintiff is warranted in making an affidavit of poverty by evidence that he owns no property, that that assessed to him belongs to his wife, and that he had requested several persons to go security for his costs, which they refused to do. Walker v. Smith, (Miss. 1895) 19 So. Rep. 102. Right May Be Established by Oath of Applicant. The oath of the plaintiff himself may be received to establish the fact necessary to show him entitled to sue in forma pauperis. Sumner v. Candler, 74 N. Car. 265. One of Several Plaintiffs cannot be admitted to sue in forma pauperis. Ustrander v. Harper, 14 How. Pr. (N. Y. Supreme Ct.) 16. A Person Who Has Parted with an Interest in the Claim on which the action is brought should not be allowed to sue in forma pauperis, although such assignment be to his attorney as compensation for his services. Joyce v. Cooper, 49 N. Y. Super. Ct. 115; Davis v. Higgins, 91 N. Car. 382. Compare Oriental v. Barclay, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 193. Husband Suing for Limited Divorce. In Petition of McAllen, I N. Y. Month. L. Bul. 60, a husband was allowed to |