Sermons v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.

W.D. Louisiana

Sermons v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.

11 F.2d 671, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1034

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana

DecidedMarch 10, 1926

DocketNo. 1579

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 F.2d 671 (Sermons v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sermons v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 11 F.2d 671, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1034 (W.D. La. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

DAWKINS, District Judge.

Defendant seeks to compel the plaintiff to give security for its costs. The latter contends that [672]*672the defendant is without right to exact such security.

In the absence of a federal statute or a rule of court upon the subject, the matter is governed by the state law. Silvas v. Arizona Copper Co., 220 F. 116, 136 C. C. A. 208; Foster’s Federal Practice (6th Ed.) vol. 2, p. 2080. No applicable federal statute has been cited, and there is no rule of this court permitting a defendant to require security for costs. In so far as the clerk is concerned, the Act of February 11, 1925 (43 Statutes at Large, 857 [Comp. St. Supp..l925, §§ 1383a-1383h]), provides for the payment of costs by each side as they accrue.

Turning to the state law, although in the parish of Orleans defendants are permitted to require such security (Act 136 of 1898) in so far as the rest of the state is concerned, the right is given alone to court officers. See Act 203 of 1898.

It appearing, therefore, that there is no rule of court or statute, either state or federal, authorizing the allowance of the motion in this ease, the same should be denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DAWKINS, District Judge.

Defendant seeks to compel the plaintiff to give security for its costs. The latter contends that [672]*672the defendant is without right to exact such security.

In the absence of a federal statute or a rule of court upon the subject, the matter is governed by the state law. Silvas v. Arizona Copper Co., 220 F. 116, 136 C. C. A. 208; Foster’s Federal Practice (6th Ed.) vol. 2, p. 2080. No applicable federal statute has been cited, and there is no rule of this court permitting a defendant to require security for costs. In so far as the clerk is concerned, the Act of February 11, 1925 (43 Statutes at Large, 857 [Comp. St. Supp..l925, §§ 1383a-1383h]), provides for the payment of costs by each side as they accrue.

Turning to the state law, although in the parish of Orleans defendants are permitted to require such security (Act 136 of 1898) in so far as the rest of the state is concerned, the right is given alone to court officers. See Act 203 of 1898.

It appearing, therefore, that there is no rule of court or statute, either state or federal, authorizing the allowance of the motion in this ease, the same should be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F.2d 671, 1926 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sermons-v-kansas-city-southern-ry-co-lawd-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack