Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-01-17
MUST FILE BONDS,
Judge Alvey Makes nm Important
Legal Decision This Morning.

Judge Alvey Makes an ImpOrtant
Legal DecisiOn This Morning.
In the Court Of Appeals a decision of
more than ordinary Importance was filed
today. the court holding that probate pro-
ceeding was not a suit or action commenced
in a court of the United States within the
meaning Of the act of Congress of July 20,
1892, which permits citizen of the United
States to commence and prosecute any suit
or action in any court of the United States
to conclusion, without being required to
prepay fees or costs or give security there
for. upon filing in the court a sworn state
ment in writing that he is unable to pay
the costs. or give security for the same.
and that he believes he is entitled to the
redress sought by him by such suit or ac-
ton.
The case in which the decision was rem
del ed was No. pa. John McGrane, appel
liant, against Dugan and Mccain, appellees.
McGrane Is the brother of the late Stella
Horton, who died about q year ago, leav-
ing her estate to the appellees The will
vas contested by McGrane, but il was sus-
tanned in the court below. and McGrane
appealed to the Court of Appeals. The APP
pellees in due time moved a dismissal of
the appeal. because, first, the appellant
(McGrane) had failed to give the bond, or
TO deposit the money. as required by rule
.. section 3. Of the Court Of Appeals, to
because the appellant had failed to file the
transcript of the record in the Appellate
Court within the time prescribed for so
doing.
The courts decision was written by Mr..
Chief Justice Alvey. Who explained that
McGrane sought to avoid the operation of
rule . OF the court by invoking and relying
upon the provision Of the act Of 1882.
But" says the court, 1t il clear, we
think, from the language Of the statute,
that 1t has no application to this case.
This proceeding originated IN a probate
court and is probate proceeding. and Is
not a suit or action comm ,nced in a court
of the United States, within the meaning
of that statute. which simply relieves the
party plaintiff from the liability to prepay
the fees or costs Of the suit or action upon
complying with certain conditions IRE
scribed.
The statute does not contemplate proceed
ings in probate court; nor does 1t con-
template proceedings in an appellate court
visions of the statute apply to the prose-
cution of appeals and writs of error to
the Supreme Court of the United States, as
to appeals in this court; and we certainly
think that was not intended. 1t has refer
ence alone to suits actions prosecuted
in courts of original Jurisdiction"
Then the court goes on to explain that
its rule requiring bond for security of costs
is intended well for the protection and
indemnity of the appellee as for security
to the officers of the court. To require the
appellee to incur costs incident to the ap-
peal. the court further explains, without
any security to indemnify him would be
manifest hardship and injustice in the
event of the Judgment being in his favor.
Finding. further, that no legal or sufii-
Gent excuse or justification was shown by
the appellant for his omission to file the
transcript of the record within the pre-
scribed time. the court holds that both OBJ
jecticns urged by the appellees were we'll
taken. and directs dismissal Of the APP
pellantS appeal