165 So. 476 | La. Ct. App. | 1936
Section 6 of Act No.
In regard to the costs incurred by Elsie Badelle Fernandez and Hannah Anderson Fernandez, both of these litigants invoked the provisions of Act No.
In regard to the costs due by Elsie Badelle Fernandez, the situation, notwithstanding our decree in her favor, is different, because, while that decree condemned Hannah Anderson Fernandez for the costs of the litigation, including the costs incurred by both claimants, nothing in our decree dispenses Elsie Badelle Fernandez with the necessity of paying the clerk the costs incurred by her, the advance payment of which she was relieved by the Pauper Act. As we said in Singleton v. First National Life Ins. Co., 157 So. 620, 622:
"It must be borne in mind that the statute does not entirely relieve the payment of costs, but only postpones payment until final determination of the cause. It is a moratorium. In White v. Walker,
"`This statute does not relieve a pauper citizen of this state of the obligation to pay costs. The fourth section of the act provides that, if judgment be rendered against a litigant who has availed himself of the privilege granted by the act, he shall be condemned to pay the costs incurred by him and recoverable by the other parties to the suit.
"`Hence the statute only relieves pauper citizens of this state of the obligation of paying court costs in advance or as they accrue or furnishing bond and security for such costs.'"
Section 3 of Act No.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be, and it is, amended, in so far as it runs in favor of Elsie Badelle Fernandez, by reducing the amount awarded her from $131.04 to $114.09, and as thus amended it is affirmed.
Amended and affirmed.