MAYER v. TYSON.—1 BLAND. 527

At common law a plaintiff was required in all cases to give
pledges to prosecute his suit with effect, or to abide the conse-
quences. This however was not, strictly speaking, giving security
for costs; because although a plaintiff might be fined for making
a false claim, yet costs, by the common law, were not recoverable
in any case. 2 Inst. 288. The pledges to prosecute have, however,
long since become obsolete. 3 P.?ac. Com. 274. The rule security
for costs is applied only against non-residents; and is of recent
origin in the Courts of common law of England: so late as the
year 1750, in a case in wrhieh it was moved, that the plaintiff, who
was a merchant residing in France, might be required to give se-
curity for costs, it was refused; because, as was said, it would
affect trade and be excluding foreigners from obtaining justice.
Lamii v. Sewell, 1 Wils. 266; Maxwell v. Mayer, 2 Burr. 1026.
Some years afterwards it became a settled general rule to allow
the defendant, even after issue joined, to demand security for
costs in all cases where the plaintiff resided beyond the jurisdic-
tion of the Court; and on the security not being given to have the
suit dismissed. Denn, ex dim. Lucas v. Fulford, 2 Burr. 1177;
Parquat v. Eling, 1 H. Blac. 106; Fitzgerald v. Whitmore, 1 T.
R. 362; Carr v. Shaw, 6 T. R. 496. But a resident plaintiff, as
it would seem, cannot be required to give security for costs merely
on account of his poverty. Golding v. Barlow, Cowp. 24; Tidd
Prac. 478.

In Maryland a plaintiff was at no time required to give pledges
to prosecute; but it appears, that if a non-resident himself applied
to sue out original process for the commencement of an action he
might be called on to give security for costs, 1715, ch. 29, and if
he did not himself so institute his suit, the attorney employed by
him was * required to put in security for costs. 1715, ch. 29;
1729, ch. 20, s. 2. By laws, passed since the Revolution, it 562
is declared, that in all suits brought by persons not resident of the
State, or who may remove out of it, after the commencement of
the action, the defendant may lay a rule, at or before the trial
Court, on the plaintiff to give security for costs: upon the failure
to comply with which he may be nonsuited. 1796, ch. 43, s. 12;
1801, ch. 74, s. 9. It is evident from these and other legislative
enactments, that the rule security for costs as against non-resident,
and in some instances against resident plaintiff's, was frequently
resorted to in our Courts of common law from a very early period.
1768, ch. 29, s. 24; 1794, ch. 54, s. 10; 2 Harr. Ent. 51, 118, 617.

Soon after the Chancellorship had become active and important
as a judicial office in England, it was declared by a statute passed
in the year 1393, that the Chancellor, upon any suggestion being
found untrue, should have the power to award damages according
to his discretion to him who had been so unduly troubled. This
statute is said to be the foundation of the authority by which costs