Woods v. Bond
This text of 1911 OK 288 (Woods v. Bond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
On February 13, 1908, John Woods, plaintiff in error, a resident of the county and state, sued R. I. Bond and T. W. Hunter, defendants in error, in the district court of Pittsburg county, and before the summons issued made a cash deposit with the clerk of the court of $15, for costs. On April 12, 1909, he was ordered by the court to deposit additional costs or security therefor within 30 days. Failing to comply with the order, the court, on April 16, 1909, on defendant’s motion, dismissed the cause at plaintiff’s cost, whereupon he excepted, and *242 his motion being overruled to reinstate the cause, he again excepted and brings the same here.
The court erred. Wilson’s Stats. of Okla. 1903, § 4773, was adopted from Kansas. Comp. Laws 1879, c. 80, § 580a. Prior thereto, it was construed in Henry D. Carr, Ex’r, v. Sarah Osterhout, 32 Kan. 277, 4 Pac. 318. There the court in the syllabus said:
“Where the plaintiff in a suit in the district court, a resident of the county in which suit is brought, before the issue of a summons, deposits with the clerk of the court the sum of $15 as security for costs, pursuant to section 580a, c. 80, Coihpiled Laws of 1879, neither he nor his legal representatives or successors in interest can be required to make any further deposit, or give any further or other security for costs in that suit in that court.”
The cause is reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1911 OK 288, 116 P. 801, 29 Okla. 241, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-bond-okla-1911.