Case ID: f_66/html/0022-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "TOWNSEND, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DEPREZ v. THOMSON-HOUSTON ELECTRIC CO.
    (Circuit Court, D. Connecticut.
    December 17, 1894.)
    No. 732.
    1. Costs — Requiring Additional Security — Practice in Equity.
    Additional security for costs may be required in a suit in equity in a, United States circuit court, following tbe equity practice in tbe state courts.
    2. Federal Courts — Following State Practice in Equity.
    In tbe absence of any provision of law of tbe United States, or rule-prescribed by tbe supreme court tbe federal courts exercise tbeir dis-’ cretion as to following tbe practice of tbe state equity courts witbin tbe-district where questions arise.
    This was a suit by Marcel Deprez against the Thomson-Houston Electric Company for infringement of a patent. Complainant was-a nonresident, and filed a bond for costs in the sum of $250. After considerable testimony had been taken on both sides, defendant, moved for additional security for costs.
    Edmund Wetmore, for plaintiff.
    C. L. Buckingham, for defendant
   TOWNSEND, District Judge.

Motion by defendant for an additional security of $7,000 for costs. The exhaustive briefs filed by counsel show that the courts have exercised their discretion as to the propriety of following the usages and practice of the state equity courts within the district where such questions have arisen. In the absence of a provision of law of the United States, or a rule proscribed by the supreme court, a. court may regulate its own pracfice in suits in equity in order to advance justice. Bills v. Railroad Co., 13 Blatchf. 230, Fed. Cas. No. 1,409; Cutter Co. v. Sears, 9 Fed. 8; Cutter Co. v. Jones, 13 Fed. 567. I find that it has been the practice of the court in this district to follow the equity practice in the slate courts, and to order an increase of security in such cases. Stewart v. The Sun, 36 Fed. 307; Uhle v. Burnham, 46 Fed. 500. In view of tin' circumstances disclosed by the affidavits and at the hearing, I think a bond of $7,000 should not be required. Let an order be entered for a bond of $2,000 in addition to the bond of $250 already tiled.