
    Jacobs v. Sale.
    June, 1820.
    Contimsance —Failure of Plaintiff to Give Security for Costs.—Error to rule a defendant to trial on a motion for continuance, when the plaintiff has failed nntil the term at which the motion is made, to give security for costs, after a rule to do so.
    Sale brought case against Jacobs, in the county court of Henrico. After the common order was confirmed in the clerk’s office, Jacobs appeared by attornej' at the March term 1817, and before pleading, obtained a rule against Sale as a foreign plaintiff, for security for costs. In this situation, the cause was continued generally, at the succeeding August, and November terms. In March 1818, the defendant moved, to have the plaintiff’s action *dismissed, for want of security; when the plaintiff’s counsel became surety for costs. The defendant then moved, to have the cause continued ; assigning as his reason for being unprepared, the failure of the plaintiff to give security for costs until that moment. The court overruled the motion; the cause was tried, and the jury found for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the Superior court of law which affirmed the judgment. There are several exceptions, but that to the opinion of the court, overruling the motion for the continuance, is the only one material.
    
      
      Continuance.—See monographic note on “Continuances” appended to Harman y. Howe, 27 Gratt. 676.
      The principal case was cited in Bank v. Mathews, 9 W. Va. 28.
    
   ROANE, Judge.

The court erred in ruling the appellant to trial, instead of granting him a continuance. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is to be sent back for a new trial. 
      
      Cabell absent.
     