In re VIDAL. In re RAMIREZ-QUINONES

In re VIDAL. In re RAMIREZ-QUINONES. (Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit. December, 1915.) BANKRUPTCY (&wkey;475-PETITIONS TO REVISE — SECURITY FOR COSTS. The statutes and rules making provision for security for costs on writs of error or ordinary appeals in equity do not apply to petitions to review proceedings in bankruptcy in matters of law, and there is no statute, rule, or settled practice authorizing an application for security for costs on a petition of that character. FEd. Note. — For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. § 885; Dec. Dig. <&wkey;475.] Petition to Revise in .Matter of Law the Proceedings of the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico. In the matter of Felipe Ramirez-Quinoncs, bankrupt. A petition to revise the proceedings in matter of law having been filed by Erme-lindo Vidal, motion is made for security for costs. Petition for security for costs denied. Jose A. Poventud, of Ponce, Porto Rico, for petitioner. Harry E. Besosa, of San Juan, Porto Rico, for respondent. Before PUTNAM, DODGE, and BINGHAM, Circuit Judges. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. This is a petition in the matter of an application to review in the matter of law the proceedings of the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico, concerning certain matters in bankruptcy, and the motion under consideration is one filed by the respondent for security for costs. None of the rules cited by the applicant govern the proceedings in the Circuit Court of Appeals in the matters mentioned. For writs of error at common law, also for the ordinary appeals in equity, the statutes of the United States, or the rules of the courts, make provisions for security for costs on allowance of the citation, or subsequent thereto. We have no statute, or rule, or any settled practice, giving a right to a respondent or appellee to apply for security for costs on a petition of this character, and we hesitate to initiate such a practice. We also refrain from laying down any rule which would prevent the Circuit Court of Appeals from requiring such security in an especially meritorious case. It is enough to add to what we have said that the present case has no special features. The petition for security for costs is denied.