JUDICIAL DECISIONS It is condition precedent to renewal of action after voluntary dismissal that plaintiff pay costs or file affidavit of indigence before or at time of renewing the action

Kraft v. Forest Park Realty & Ins. Co., 111 Ga. App. 621, 142 S.E.2d 402, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 1044 (1965). Payment of costs prerequisite only when first action is dismissed by act of plaintiff. — It is only when action has been dismissed or discontinued and dismissal or discontinuance is by act of plaintiff that, as condition precedent to recommencing action, costs of former action must be paid or an affidavit in forma pauperis in lieu thereof be made. Dowe v. Debus Mfg. Co., 52 Ga. App. 713, 184 S.E. 362, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 232 (1936). Service must have been had in first action. — Before it is required as condition precedent to filing of action that costs which accrued in former action between same parties for same cause be paid or an affidavit in forma pauperis be made, former action must have been one pending between the parties; and when, in former action, service of the defendant was not perfected, and an action was dismissed on this ground, the former action was never pending. Dowe v. Debus Mfg. Co., 52 Ga. App. 713, 184 S.E. 362, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 232 (1936); Register v. Sanders, 103 Ga. App. 368, 119 S.E.2d 294, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 942 (1961). Mere filing with clerk, without issuance of process, is not institution of an action, and payment of costs is not condition precedent to filing at next term of court on identical cause of action. Register v. Sanders, 103 Ga. App. 368, 119 S.E.2d 294, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 942 (1961). No further affidavit of indigence when affidavit filed in prior action. — Provision in O.C.G.A. § 9-15-2(a) that an affidavit of indigence relieves a party of “any deposit, fee, or other cost” requires that, when a plaintiff files such an affidavit upon bringing an action, takes a voluntary dismissal, then seeks to renew the action, no payment of accrued costs and no further affidavit of indigence are required for the filing of the renewal action. McKenzie v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., 173 Ga. App. 402, 326 S.E.2d 502, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2629 (1985). Two actions must be identical as to parties and causes of action before this section applies. May Realty Co. v. Lohman, 176 Ga. 740, 168 S.E. 772, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 275 (1933). Affidavit under this section must be filed at time of commencement of second action. Johnson v. Central of Ga. Ry., 119 Ga. 185, 45 S.E. 988, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 83 (1903). Affidavit in this section is considered part of petition with which it is filed and must be filed with petition at time of its filing. Southern Grocery Stores, Inc. v. Kelly, 52 Ga. App. 551, 183 S.E. 924, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 181 (1936). Timing of filing of petition and affidavit. — When affidavit and petition appear separately and are not physically attached to each other, but are at the same time filed with the court clerk, filing of the affidavit is in compliance with this section. Powell v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 48 Ga. App. 529, 173 S.E. 196, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 119 (1934). Affidavit need not be attached to the petition in order to be considered filed therewith. North Am. Accident Ins. Co. v. Scarborough, 49 Ga. App. 833, 176 S.E. 671, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 571 (1934). Amendment of venue statement in affidavit. — When state and county in heading of venue of affidavit made under this section were by mistake incorrectly stated, and it appeared from the jurat that the affidavit was actually signed and sworn to in the proper jurisdiction, the judge did not err in allowing the affidavit to be amended. Southern Grocery Stores, Inc. v. Kelly, 52 Ga. App. 551, 183 S.E. 924, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 181 (1936). Affidavit by next friend. — Affidavit in forma pauperis in renewed action brought by minor through the minor’s next friend should be made and filed by the next friend. Powell v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 48 Ga. App. 529, 173 S.E. 196, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 119 (1934). This section has no application when former action was pending in federal court. Powell v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 48 Ga. App. 529, 173 S.E. 196, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 119 (1934). Action against partnership composed of two partners was not subject to abatement when former action on same account had been brought by the plaintiff against one partner as an individual, which action had been dismissed, and the plaintiff had failed to pay costs of the action or file an affidavit of indigence before institution of an action against the partnership. May Realty Co. v. Lohman, 176 Ga. 740, 168 S.E. 772, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 275 (1933).