In view of the affidavits filed in support of the plaintiff’s proceedings in the surrogate’s court, I am inclined to believe that the action is prosecuted with a reasonable prospect of success, and that a substantial issue exists as to the validity of the pay *407ment made by defendant in recognition of the claim of a- gift causa' , mortis. It appeal’s that the plaintiff has brought the action in good! faith, and, under the authorities, the fact that the estate is without j assets is not alone sufficient to call for an order for security ion-costs. Rutherford v. Town of Madrid, 77 Hun, 545, 28 N. Y. Supp. 923; Hale v. Mason, 86 Hun, 499, 33 N. Y. Supp. 789; Brown v. Dean, 83 Hun, 613, 31 N. Y. Supp. 1126; Fagan v. Strong, 19 Civ. Proc. R. 88, 7 N. Y. Supp. 919; Sullivan v. McManus, 12 N. Y. Law J. 297; Ridgway v. Symons, 14 Misc. Rep. 78, 35 N. Y. Supp. 197; Cahn v. Sugenheimer (Sup.) 57 N. Y. Supp. 406.
For these reasons, the motion to compel the administrator to give- - security for costs is denied.