Case Name: KISSNER v. OHIO BUREAU OF CREDITS, INC.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1942-05-26
Citations: 37 Ohio L. Abs. 170
Docket Number: No. 3409
Parties: KISSNER v OHIO BUREAU OF CREDITS, INC.
Judges: GEIGER, PJ., BARNES & HORN-BECK, JJ., concur.
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 37
Pages: 170–171

Head Matter:
KISSNER v OHIO BUREAU OF CREDITS, INC.
Ohio Appeals, 2nd District, Franklin County.
No. 3409.
Decided May 26, 1942.
W. B. Cockrell, Columbus, for plaintiff-appellee.
W. B. McLeskey, for defendant-appellant.

Opinion:
OPINION
BY THE COURT:
This matter is before the Court upon a motion by the defendant-appellant to require the plaintiffappellee to make an additional deposit as security for costs. The plaintiff-appellee is a resident of Delaware County, and brought an action against the defendant in-Franklin County, seeking judgment of the Court in reference to the disposition of certain rents derived from real estate located in Delaware County. The plain tiff-appellee deposited with the Clerk of the Common Pleas Court $25.00 as security under the provision of the statute. Sec. 1116 GC provides that the plaintiff may deposit with the Clerk of the Court such sum of money as security for costs in the case as in the opinion of the Clerk shall be sufficient for the purpose. The plaintiff recovered judgment in the Court below, and the defendant appealed. The necessity for additional costs arises out of the action of the appellant in this Court and the services giving rise to the necessity have already been performed. Although the original deposit for costs was made in the Court of Common Pleas, yet on a proper showing the plaintiff-appellee may be required to give additional costs. Sterwerf v Smith, 73 Oh St 62. See also Devine v Detroit Trust Co., 52 Oh Ap 446, at page 452.
"A nonresident plaintiff in error may be required to give security for costs." Ebert v Ebert, 14 Abs 714 (Opinion by this Court.)
"Security for costs can be exacted in the Court of Appeals in an error proceeding, notwithstanding the ease has gone to judgment in the trial court without requiring the security." Caster Co. v Laundry Co., 13 Abs 64.
The fact that the case is before us on an appeal by the defendant in the court below, does not deprive this Court of the right to require the plaintiff-appellee to give additional security for costs if the same is justified.
However, when we consider that the plaintiff secured judgment against the defendant in the Court below and tha.t the appeal is taken by the defendant to this Court, and that the defendant-appellant has incurred the costs since judgment was rendered against it in the Court below, we are not inclined to require the plaintiff-appellee to give any additionai security. The purpose of security is well stated in Devine v Trust Co., 52 Oh Ap, 453, and it does not occur to us that any of the reasons thereof obtain to the extent that we should order additional costs.
Motion overruled.
GEIGER, PJ., BARNES & HORN-BECK, JJ., concur.