Grinage v. Times-Democrat Publishing Company

• Decision Date: 01 January 1901
• Docket Number: 13,816
• Citation: 107 La. 121,31 So. 682
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: MR. AND MRS. J. R. GRINAGE v. TIMES-DEMOCRAT PUBLISHING COMPANY

31 So. 682

107 La. 121

MR. AND MRS. J. R. GRINAGE v. TIMES-DEMOCRAT PUBLISHING COMPANY

No. 13,816

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 1, 1901

APPEAL from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans -- Theard, J.

E. A O'Sullivan, for Plaintiffs, Appellants.

Clegg &amp Quintero, and Lawrence O'Donnell, for Defendant Appellee.

OPINION

BLANCHARD J.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing their suit.

This action of the trial court came about in this way: --

Counsel for defendant, suggesting to the court that the taking of testimony in the case and the proceedings to be had therein would involve considerable expense, and that defendant was entitled to be protected by bond and security for costs, moved for an order on plaintiffs to furnish bond and security in the sum of fifty dollars, or in default thereof that their suit be dismissed.

The court granted the order, predicating its action upon Section 4 of Act 136 of 1880.

Whereupon, plaintiffs took a rule upon defendant to show cause why the order should not be set aside and annulled, alleging as grounds for such annulment the unconstitutionality of the Section of the Act referred to.

The trial of this rule resulted in the denial of its prayer, and, thereupon, counsel for defendant moved for the dismissal of plaintiffs' suit because of failure to furnish the bond and security for costs within the time fixed by the court.

This motion prevailed and judgment of dismissal was entered up.

Act 136 of 1880 is an act to fix the fees of the clerks of the Civil and Criminal District Courts of the Parish of Orleans, and those of the other officials of that parish, to regulate the collection of said fees, and directing other things germane and pertinent to the subject matter of the fees, and their collection, of the officers named in the act.

The title to the Act is a long one. It is not necessary to recite it in full. That portion of it with which we are called upon presently to deal is embraced in the words italicized above.

Section 4 of the Act enacts that the defendant in any cause shall have the right to require the plaintiff to give bond for costs, in such amount as the court may fix, to secure repayment, on final determination of the suit, of the costs expended by such defendant therein.

It further provides that the order requiring such security shall issue ex parte on the application of the defendant, and no further proceedings shall be had in the cause until the security be furnished; that the court shall fix the delay within which the bond is to be given and the failure to give it within such delay shall operate a dismissal of the suit as in case of non-suit; that in all cases the security for cost shall be considered a party to the suit and shall be condemned in solido, with the principal, for the amount of costs recoverable.

The contention of the appellants is that the Act of 1880 contravenes Art. 29 of the Constitution of 1879 in this, that it embraces more than one object, and that the body of the Act, in its Section 4, deals with a matter not set forth in its title.

They hold that the title to the act cannot fairly be construed to embrace within its grasp, in the constitutional intendment, the subject matter and object set forth in Section 4, and that, therefore, Section 4 is to be eliminated from the law as without constitutional warrant and validity.

The rule is that an act of the General Assembly must be held constitutional unless its repugnance to the organic law is apparent and certain.

Courts are not justified in holding a statute void because...