530 MAYER v. TYSON—1 BLAND,

from the plaintiff resident abroad, the defendant having security
from the resident plaintiffs. Winthrop v. Royal Each. Ass, Com.,
Dick. 282; Walker v. Easterby, 6 Ves. 612. And although any
monarch of a foreign nation with whom the United States are at
peace, City of Berne v. Bank of England, 9 Fes. 347, or any one of
the States of the Union may be permitted to institute a suit in
our Courts against any of our citizens; yet such monarch or co-
state may be required to give security for costs. 1 Hovend. Sup.
to Ves. 149; 1785, ch. 36.

It would seem, that in England the demand upon the plaintiff
to give security for costs may in all cases be made either by motion
or petition setting forth the facts upon which the application is
made. 2 Harr. Pra. Chan. 60; 2 Mad. Chan. 270. But here, in
cases where the fact of the non-residence appears upon the face of
the bill, it has always been the practice in this Court, and cer-
tainly is the easiest and best course, to move within the sittings
of a term, as at law to lay a rule upon the docket, that the plain-
tiff be required to give security for costs * during the sit-
565 tings of the next succeeding term.(e) But if the fact of
the non-residence of the plaintiff does not appear upon the face
of the bill; or if he has after filing his bill left the State; then the
matter must be brought before the Court by petition, and a special
order obtained, to be served on the plaintiff's solicitor, or, if
he has none, to be entered short upon the docket, requiring
security for costs to be given, unless cause shewn by a particular
day. The form of security is a recognizance or bond to the State
in a penalty sufficient to cover the costs, with surety resident
within the State, to be approved by the Chancellor. (f)

(e) DENNIS, &o. ASSIGNEES OF D, A. BANKRUPT v. GREENBURY.—1714.—Or-
dered, that security be given for costs in the sum of five thousand pounds
of tobacco; bond to be given in six weeks or the bill to be dismissed.—Chan.
Proc. lib. P. L. fol. 75.

FALCONER v. BLAY.—1715.—Bill dismissed with costs for want of secur-
rity being given according to the rule of last Court.—Chan. Proc. lib. P. L.
fol. 122.

HANBURY v. VERNON.—1731.—Upon motion of the defendant's counsel,
Ordered that security for costs be given. Edmund Jenings becomes security
for the same.—Chan. Proc. lib. S. R. No. 2, fol. 225.

CHENEY v. CHENEY.—1773.—Rule security for costs and fees next Court.—
Chan. Proc. lib. W. K. No. 1, fol. 314.

BRYDEN v. CHASE.—20th December, 1810.—The plaintiff was a resident of
New York. Rule on the plaintiff to give security for costs before the 5th day
of February Term, 1811. Eule enlarged to the fourth day of July Term, 1811.

THE LORD PROPRIETARY v. CARROLL. —1738.—Information, &c.—Upon mo-
tion of the defendant's counsel, Ordered, that security for costs be given by
next Court; the person at whose relation the information is filed being a
non-resident.—Chan. Proc. lib. J. R. No. 3, fol 465.

(f) Upon which there may be as it appears a "scire facias against the secu-
rity for costs on the recognizance," 1763, ch. 18, s. 89; or an attachment as
at common law, 2 Harr, tint. 617.