Case Name: GRAHAME AND CLOSE v. DOUGLAS
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-11
Citations: 1 Wright 738
Docket Number: 
Parties: *GRAHAME AND CLOSE v. DOUGLAS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 765–765

Head Matter:
*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. ' • i
A continuance will not be granted for want of security 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 bound to prepare without security was given.

Opinion:
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.