TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Paducah Hotel Co. v. Dennis Long & Co.

Paducah Hotel Company v. Dennis Long & Co., &c.

Paducah Hotel Co. v. Dennis Long & Co., 17 S.W. 853 (Ky. Ct. App. 1891)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 24, 1891
Judges
Chiee, Holt
Citations
17 S.W. 85392 Ky. 2781891 Ky. LEXIS 168
Headnotes
1. Appellants may be Required to give Security for Costs where they would if plaintiffs in an action be so required. One of two appellants being a corporation and the other the claimant, as assignee, of certain bonds issued by the corporation, and the latter being shown to be insolvent, bond for costs is required. 2. Constitutional Law. — The Legislature may prescribe the terms upon which parties may appeal, provided there is no improper discrimination. 3. The word “Plaintiff,” as used in the Civil Code, embraces a defendant who seeks relief by cross-petition.
Summary
Case 52 — RULE— APPEAL FROM M’ CRACKEN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Chieeholt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

CHIEE JUSTICE HOLT

delivered the opinion of the court.

The response to the rule against the appellants to give security for costs is insufficient.

The Paducah Hotel Company is a corporation. The only other appellant is the claimant, as assignee, of a portion of the bonds issued by the Hotel Company. He is shown to be insolvent.

Section 744 of the Civil Code, relative to practice in this court, says: “ The appellant may be required to give security for costs, as plaintiffs in civil actions may be so required.”

Section 616' provides that a plaintiff, who is a non-resident of the State, or a corporation, other than a bank created by the laws of this State, shall give security for the costs of the action ; and section 619 is: “A guardian, curator, committee or next friend, suing for a person *279 under disability ; and every plaintiff suing as an assignee, except an indorsee of a bill of exchange or a promissory note placed upon the footing of a bill of exchange, when insolvent, may be required to give security for costs; and on failure to do so in a reasonable time after it is directed by the court, upon the motion of the defendant his action shall be dismissed. ”

These provisions clearly entitle the appellees in this case to demand security for costs.

In addition, however, it may be said the appellants became defendants below upon their petition, and sought relief by cross-petition. By section 732, sub-section 36, of the Civil Code the word “ plaintiff ” embraces a defendant, who demands a set-off, or counter claim; the word “ defendant” a plaintiff against whom such a demand is made; and the word “ petition ” an answer or reply in which such a demand is made, and also embraces cross-petitions.

Insolvency alone does not entitle an appellee to security for costs from the appellant; nor-unless some statutory ground for asking it exists against all appellants united in interest, can it be required.

This appeal’s, however, in this case, and the rule is, therefore, made absolute. While all parties have the constitutional right to be heard in the courts in defense of their rights, yet the Legislature certainly has the power to prescribe the terms upon which they may appeal, and if these terms be applicable alike to all of a class, .and. there be no improper discrimination, they are not open to objection. The appellants are required to give security for the costs of this appeal within thirty days or it will be dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1901: 11910: 11911: 11935: 11947: 22015: 119012026peak 1947 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Latshaw v. State ex rel. Latshaw59 N.E. 471 (Ind. 1901)
  2. Caddell v. Fiscal Court of Whitley Co.79 S.W.2d 407 (Ky. Ct. App. 1935)
  3. Gerace v. Bentley62 V.I. 254 (2015)
  4. Bracken v. Dinning131 S.W. 19 (Ky. Ct. App. 1910)
  5. Horton v. Sherrill-Russell Lumber Co.139 S.W. 737 (Ky. Ct. App. 1911)
  6. Román v. District Court of San Juan67 P.R. 876 (1947)

Most recent

  1. Gerace v. Bentley62 V.I. 254 (2015)
  2. Román v. District Court of San Juan67 P.R. 876 (1947)
  3. Román v. Tribunal de Distrito de San Juan67 P.R. Dec. 933 (1947)
  4. Caddell v. Fiscal Court of Whitley Co.79 S.W.2d 407 (Ky. Ct. App. 1935)
  5. Horton v. Sherrill-Russell Lumber Co.139 S.W. 737 (Ky. Ct. App. 1911)
  6. Bracken v. Dinning131 S.W. 19 (Ky. Ct. App. 1910)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list