MAZER v. TYSON.—1 BLAND. 529

appears upon the face of the bill, that the plaintiff is a non-resi-
dent of the State, or where it is shewn that the defendant, before
he answers, knows that the plaintiff, who does not belong to the
Army or Navy of the United States, resides beyond the jurisdic-
tion of the Court, it is of course, on application, to compel him to
give security. 1 Fow. Exch. Pra. 278; Melioroucchy v. Melio-
rouchy, 2 Ves. 24; Dick. 147; Anonymous, 10 Fes. 287; Colebrook
v. Jon.es, Did: 154. But if the defendant, being aware of the
non-residence of the plaintiff, answers the bill or applies for time,
security will not be required. Craig v. Bolton, 2 Bro. C. C. 609.
If the plaintiff styles himself in his bill, of a place where he can-
not be found, he must give security for costs. 2 Fow. Exch. Pra.
311; Stackpoole v. O'Callaghan, 1 Ball. & Ben. 566.(d) If the. de-
fendant, at the time of answering, be ignorant of the residency
abroad, he may as soon as the fact comes to * his knowledge,
obtain security; Lonergan v. Rokeby, Dick. 799; and the 564
same rule applies where the plaintiff after answer abandons the
State and resides abroad. Weeks v. Cole, 14 Fes. 518. But if the
defendant after being apprised of the fact, by an insufficient
answer, or an answer filed by mistake, or by any proceeding in the
case, recognizes the plaintiff's right to sue, he cannot obtain se-
curity for costs. Dyott v. Dyott, 1 Mad. Rep. 186. Nor will the
plaintiff in a cross bill be required to give security for costs, though
residiug out of the jurisdiction of the Court. Where a prochein
ami has taken the benefit of the insolvent law, or has been with-
drawn and a new one appointed, security may be required for the
costs already incurred. Pennington v. Alvin, 1 Sim. & Stew. 264.
And where a plaintiff is out of the reach of the process of the
Court by being under the protection of a foreign ambassador, he
may be required to give security. Adderly v. Smith, Dick. 355.
The simple fact of the plaintiff having gone abroad, is not a suffi-
cient ground to require security, Hoby v. Hitchcock, 5 Ves. 699, it
must appear that he has gone to reside abroad. Green v. Charnock,
3 Bro, C. C. 371; Dick. 775. If after answer, it appears by affidavit,
that the plaintiff, though gone abroad, intends to return, his family
remaining in this State, he will not be compelled to give security
for costs. White v, Greathead, 15 Ves. 2. If there is a co-plain-
tiff' residing within the jurisdiction, security will not be required

(d) FISHER v. KAENE.—The plaintiff's attorney being demanded by this
Court if he would give security for costs, if, upon hearing of the business,
the bill should be dismissed; and he refusing, the complainant having, at
present, December, 1670, no visible estate in the Province: It was Ordered
by this Court, that the complainant's said bill be dismissed; and that the
said Fisher complainant, or Simon Warren his attorney, pay to the defend-
ant the sum of three pounds six shillings and eight pence for costs; and
that decree pass out of this Court for the same against the said Fisher, or his
attorney Simon Warren.—Chan. Proc. Kb. C. D. fol, 41.
34 1B.