
    JOSEPH FENET VS. HENRY WILSON.
    Depositing vyith the Clerk of the Court, as security for costs, money sufficient to cover the costs, is a compliance with an order of Court, requiring security for costs.
    
      Before Mr, Justice Richardson, at Darlington, Spring Term, 1837.
    The defendant obtained an order, in October last, that the plaintiff should give security for costs, on or before the 1st of March thereafter, or suffer a non-suit. In November, the plaintiff lodged with the clerk of the court $50, as security for costs, which sum the clerk regarded as sufficient to cover the costs. At this Term, the defendant moved to enter up judgment of non-suit, on the ground that the order of October Term had not been complied with. His Ho.nor held otherwise, and refused .the motion, $n.d the defendant appealed.
    
      Moses, for the motion.
   Curia, per

Richardson, J.

The majority of the court concur in opinion with the presiding judge. The money lodged with the clerk, was evidently sufficient to cover the costs. The object of giving security to pay the costs, was answered; and the security would be superfluous. Any security could do no more than ensure so much money as would pay the costs. But the money in hand, ipso facto, realizes the payment beforehand,; and renders the instrument for securing the costs, an unessential form. I think this view conclusive. But we have analogous cases — -in McCollum vs. Massey, 2 Bail. 604; 2 M’C. 442; 2 Hill, 558, yvhere the strict form of security for costs was dispensed with.,

The motion is dismissed.

¿Gi-antt and Rutler, JJ, concurred.  