
    Thomas W. Furnan vs. Samuel Harman.
    Where the plaintiff is ordered to give security for costs, being resident out of the state, it is sufficient to enter such security on the back of $he declaration.
    
      Newberiy July Term, 1822. — Motion to set aside non-suit. Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt.
    
    AT October Term, and after the cause was placed on the issue docket, an order was obtained at the instance of the defendant, that the plaintiff who resided without the limits of this state should give security for the costs of this case, on or before the next term, or be nonsuited.
    Security for costs was given in pursuance of the order, but the obligation was taken on the declaration which was . in the possession of the plaintiff’s attorney instead of being (entered in the clerk’s office.
    At the specidl court at July Term, 1822, a nonsuit was .ordered, on the ground that security for costs had not been regularly entered and filed in the clerk’s office.
    The plaintiff moved this court to set aside the order of nonsuit, and for leave to reinstate his case on the docket, «a the grounds :
    1st. That the order for security for costs was unconstitutional, and therefore void.
    2d. That entering security on the declaration, was perfectly regular and consistent with the practice of this .•oourt.
    
      Bauskett, for the motion.
    
      Qaldwell, contri?.
   Mr. Justice Colcock

delivered the opinion of the court:

The court are of opinion that the entry on the back of the record was a sufficient compliance with the order made for security for costs, and that the nonsuit should not have been ordered. If there was surprize, it would have been a good ground for continuance. The first; ground was abandoned.

The motion is granted.

Justices Johnson, Huger, Richardson and Nott, concurred.  