Case Name: Sterwerf v. Smith
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1905-10-31
Citations: 73 Ohio St. 62
Docket Number: No. 9236
Parties: Sterwerf v. Smith.
Judges: Davis, C. J., Shauck, Price, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 73
Pages: 62–63

Head Matter:
Sterwerf v. Smith.
Non-resident plaintiff required to give security, when.
A non-resident plaintiff may - he required to give security for costs in a proceeding in error; and in default thereof his petition may be dismissed.
(No. 9236
Decided October 31, 1905.)
Error to the Circuit Court of Butler county.
Smith brought suit in the court of common pleas of Butler county against Sterwerf for a revivor of a judgment. Judgment was rendered against Sterwerf reviving the.original judgment; and such proceedings were had that Sterwerf filed a petition in error in the circuit court of.Butler county to reverse the judgment in favor of Smith against Sterwerf. Smith filed a motion in the circuit court to require Sterwerf to give security for costs, on the ground that Sterwerf was a non-resident of Butler county. The circuit court sustained the motion, and Sterwerf being in default for security for costs, the proceeding in error was dismissed at his costs. Sterwerf prosecutes a proceeding in error here to reverse the judgment of the circuit court.
Mr. Eugene G. Pociey, attorney for plaintiff in error.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Without determining whether or not the courts have inherent power to require security for costs, as has been held sometimes, we are of the opinon that within the language of Eevised Statutes, sections 5340-1 and 5340-2, the judgment of the circuit court was right. The power conferred by the statute is not limited to ' ' civil actions, ' ' originally commenced; but it is provided that the plaintiff shall be bound for the payment of the costs which may be adjudged against him in the court in which the action is brought, "or in any other court to which it may be carried, ' ' etc. This broad language covers appellate jurisdiction, whether by appeal or in error; for, although a proceeding in error is not a "civil action," the identity of the action is not lost in the proceeding in error, and hence the action may be "carried" to a court of review by a proceeding in error.
Affirmed.
Davis, C. J., Shauck, Price, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur.