Case ID: ohio-ch_1/html/0738-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GRAHAME AND CLOSE v. DOUGLAS.
    Security for costs — attorney—substitution—continuance.
    Where an attorney inadvertently enters security for costs contrary to rule, he will be allowed to substitute other security.
    A continuance will not be granted for want of secuiity for costs, unless the omission has prevented the preparation of the case.
    The plaintiff being a non-resident, Worthington, his attorney, had gone security for costs, contrary to the rule of the court.
    Woodside, for the defendant,
    treating the security as a nullity, asked a continuance of the case, because security was not given.
    
      Worthington
    
    stated that he had inadvertently entered the security, not being aware of the rule of court, and offered to substitute other security for costs, which the court allowed.
    
      Woodside
    
    still pressed his motion to continue, because he was not prepared, and was not hound to prepare without security was given.
   The Court.

If you will state that preparation had been omitted because security was not in, we will listen to the motion.

- This was not done and the continuance was refused.

Judgment was then entered for the plaintiff by agreement of counsel.