226 FEDBBAL REPORTER. �security. If, as defendants allege, the plaintiffs are insolvent, (though that is denied by them,) the court ought to be only the more cautions not to interpose any impedimenta in the way of their prosecuting any legal claim they may have except upon clear evidence of its necessity to protect the defendants' rights, and then to no greajter estent than manifest necessity requires. The practice in the state courts, wbere the right to large eosts and extra allowances by way of costs may arise prospectively from the commencement of the action, cannot apply to actions in this court, where sueh costs and allowances are unknown, and where large actual disbursements are the only ground of requiring extraordinary security. �The plaintiffs must give the ordinary security required by the raies, without prejudice to the right of the defendants hereafter to apply for further security upon proof of disbursements necessarily incurred in excess of the securitv filed. ���The Cortes Co. v. Thannhauser and another, �Chittenden and others v. The Same. �{Circuit Court, 8. B. S ew York. November 2, 1881.) �1. Pbocess— AcT OF 1876, { 1— Equitt Rule 13. �A subpœna or notice, issued on the flling of a bill in equity to enjoin an action at law, is not regarded as an original process or proceeding within the meaning of section 1 of the act of March 3, 1875, nor as within the terms of rule 13 in equity. �2. Bamb — Service op. �A bill brought by a defendant to enjoin the suit at law is only ancillary to such suit; but the court may, in its discretion, order Personal service of the subpœna on the plaintifE, if he can be found, in addition to substituted service on his attorney. �L. E. Chittenden, for plaintiffs. �S. B. Clarke and J. W. Lilienthal, for defendants. �Blatohford, C. J. The defendants in these suits have brought two suits at law in this court against the Cortes Company and one suit at law in this court against Lucius E. Chittenden and others to re- cover sums of money alleged to be due. The above are suits in equity. The first of them is brought to restrain the prosecution of all three of the suits at law, and the second to restrain the prosecu- tion of the suit at law against Chittenden and others. Properly in- terpreted, there is no prayer in either of the two bills for any relief except injunctions to stay the prosecution of the suits at law. The ��� �
