
    Bridges and another v. Canfield and others.
    
      October 20, 1834.
    Bill to be dismissed, if security for costs by non-resident complainants were not given with-» in 30 days: the parties not having complied with a former order for security.
    Complainants were non-residents. They had given security for costs to the amount of five hundred dollars ; but, in consequence" of a surety becoming insolvent, an order was made on the fourteenth day of July one thousand eight hundred and thirty four requiring the complainants to file fresh security. At the present time, the defendant’s solicitor made an affidavit whereby it appeared that no new security had been filed; and a motion was made “ that the complainants give security for the said deféndants costs, by a bond in the penal sum of five' hundred dollars, with two sufficient sureties to be approved by the clerk of the court and filed in his office within twenty days or such other time as the court may . v v , ¿jreot. anc] jn default thereof, that on filing an affidavit oi such default, an order be entered of course dismissing the bill, with costs or for such other order as the court may be pleased to grant.
    
      Mr. O. Bushnell, for the motion.
    
      Mr. W. S. Sears, contra.
    
      November 3.
   The Vice Chancellor:

Upon the strength of adjudged cases (Massey v. Gillilan, 1. Paige’s C. R. 644; Fulton v. Rosevelt Ib. 178.) and what is said by Mr. Hoffman, in his Practice (1. vol. 201) let an order be entered requiring the security referred to in the order of the fourteenth of July last to be perfected within thirty days or that the bill be dismissed.  