
    SEARLE v. MANN.
    September 10, 1836.
    
      Motion for a rule on plaintiff to give security for costs.
    
    A rule on the plaintiff to give security for costs will not be granted unless he is a non resident of the state at the institution of the- suit. The affidavit of the party applying for such rule is defective, unless it avers such non residence.
    
      BILISfJEJIRS, for the defendant, on filing the defendant’s affidavit of a just defence, and that the plaintiff resided out of the state, moved for a rule on the plaintiff to give security for costs, under the 26th rule of the court, which prescribes, that “in all cases where the plaintiff resides out of the state, in qui tarn actions, in suits on administration and office bonds, or when the plaintiff, after suit brought, has taken the benefit of the insolvent laws, the defendant on rnotion and affidavit, &c. may have a rule that the plaintiff give security for costs at or before some period to be appointed by the court, &c.”
   Per Curiam.

The affidavit as to the non residence of the plaintiff, is defective in not stating that the plaintiff was not a resident of the state at the time of the institution of the suit. The rule of court was not intended to designate any cause for an order for security for costs arising after suit brought, except that specially provided for, that is, “ where the plaintiff has taken the benefit of the insolvent laws.”

Motion refused.  