RS 3883 - Sheriff entitled to security; refusal to act in absence of security or advancement
A. The sheriff in the performance of official services pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter may demand security for his costs and actual expenses, in an amount as may be fixed by the court, or he may demand a deposit to cover his costs, but in all cases any party requiring the official services to be performed by the sheriff may advance the fees for the services. The order requiring the security for costs shall issue ex parte on the application of the sheriff and the sheriff shall not be required to perform the services until the security has been furnished. The court shall fix the delay within which the security for costs shall be furnished, and the failure to furnish it, within the delay, shall operate to relieve the sheriff of any liability for any damage that may result to the party from the failure to perform the services. If the party interested in having the official services performed contests the amount of the security as fixed by the order, that party may rule the sheriff into court to show cause why the amount of the security should not be reduced. On the trial of this rule, the court shall fix the amount of security, and if reduced, the party bringing the rule shall be entitled to a refund where the previous amount of security has been furnished. If no security has been furnished, the amount shall be due forthwith and the sheriff shall not be required to perform the services until the security has been furnished.
B. Wherever the word "sheriff" appears in this Section, it shall be construed to also mean "marshal".
Added by Acts 1974, No. 613, §1; Acts 2010, No. 528, §1.