
    William B. Shearman, by Guardian, ad litem, Resp’t, v. Charles D. Pope, App’lt.
    
      (Court of Appeals,
    
    
      Filed July 1, 1887.)
    
    Practice—Stay of proceedings—Does not prevent granting certain orders—Poor person.
    The fact that a motion is pending to compel a plaintiff to give security for costs, with the usual stay, does not deprive the same court of jurisdiction to make an order allowing plaintiff to sue as a poor person.
    Appeal by defendant from an order of the city court of ■ Brooklyn denying a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.. This action was brought August 2, 1885, and on August tenth defendant obtained an order directing plaintiff to file an undertaking for costs in the sum of $250, or to deposit that sum together with a stay of proceedings. Plaintiff was unable to do either, and defendant served notice of? motion for a dismissal of the complaint. Before the motion came on to be heard plaintiff obtained an order allowing him to prosecute as a poor person, and when the motion came on the court refused to dismiss the complaint.
    
      John K. Kuhn, for app’lt; F. J. Moissen, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

The same court which required the plaintiff to give security for costs subsequently made an order allowing the plaintiff to prosecute this action as a poor person. The stay of proceedings granted when the first order was made, did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to make the second order, and that order was an answer to the motion to dismiss the complaint.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.  