MAYER v. TYSON. 563

course has long prevailed in England.(o) This English statute
never was in force in Maryland; but here as in England security
for costs might always have been required of a nonresident
plaintiff, (p)

, In general the name, description, and place of abode of the plain-
tiff should be set forth in the bill, that the court and defendants
may know where to resort to compel obedience to any order or
process, and particularly for payment of any costs which may be
awarded against the plaintiff, or to punish any improper conduct
in the course of the suit.(q)

As to the cases in which a plaintiff may be required to give
security for costs, it may be regarded as settled, that when it
appears upon the face of the bill, that the plaintiff is a nonresident
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 jurisdiction of
the court, it is of course, on application, to compel him to
give security.(r) But if the defendant, being aware of the non-
residence of the plaintiff, answers the bill or applies for time, secu-
rity will not be required.(s) If the plaintiff stiles himself in his
bill, of a place where he cannot be found, he must give security
for costs, (t) If the defendant, at the time of answering, be igno-
rant of the residency abroad, he may as soon as the fact comes to

(o) 1 Harr. Prac. Chan. 200; 2 Mad. Chan. 543.--(p) Kilty's Rep. 62.

JANSY v. CLAUSE .—It is alleged by the attorney for the defendant, that the defend-
ant is ready to put in his answer to the plaintiffs* bill, provided the plaintiffs who are
foreigners, and live out of the jurisdiction of this province, or their attorney, or some
one else for them, will give security to pay such costs of suit as this court shall
adjudge in case the said plaintiffs' bill be dismissed.

14th February, 1670.—Per Curiam.—Whereupon it is ordered that no further pro-
ceedings be had in the said cause till such security be given as aforesaid. And after-
wards no security having been given as required, the bill was dismissed.—Chan.
Proc. lib. C. D. 29, 41.

(q) 1 Fow. Exch. Pra. 26.—(r) 1 Fow. Exch. Pra. 278; Melioroucchy v. Melio-
roucchy, 2 Ves. 24; Dick. 147; Anonymous, 10 Ves. 287; Colebrook v, Jones, Dick.
154.—.(s) Craig v. Bolton, 2 Bro. C. C. 609.— (t) 2 Fow. Exch. Pra. 311; Stackpoole
v. O'Callaghan, 1 Ball & Bea. 566.

FISHER v. KEENE.—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 defendant 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. lib. C. D. fol. 41.