SECURITY FOR COSTS. In some courts there is a rule that when the plaintiff re sides abroad he shall give security for costs, and until that has been done, when demand ed, he cannot proceed in his action.
This is a right which the defendant must claim in proper time; for if he once waives it he cannot afterwards claim it: the waiver is seldom or perhaps never expressly made, but is generally implied from the acts of the defendant. When the defendant had under taken to accept short notice of trial; 2 H. Bla. 573; or after issue joined, and when he knew of plaintiff's residence abroad, or, with such knowledge, when the defendant' takes any step in the cause, these several acts will amount to a waiver ; 5 B. & Ald. 702; Swift v. Stine, 3 Wash. T. 518, 19 Pac. 63. It is never too late, however, if the mo tion do not delay the trial;. Shaw v. Wallis, 1 Yeates (Pa.) 176.
The fact that the defendant is out of the jurisdiction of the court will not alone au thorize the requisition of security for costs: he must have his domicil abroad; 1 Yes.
396. A wife petitioning for a writ of ha beas corpus to obtain from her husband, who resides in the state, the custody of their child, cannot be required without proofs to. give bond as a non-resident, since her domi cil is prima facie the same as her husband's; Curtis v. Curtis, 131 Ind. 489, 30 N. EL 18. When the defendant resides abroad, he will be required to give such security although he is a foreign prince. See McFarland v.. Brown, 11 S. & R. (Pa.) 121. A general affi davit is sufficient on moving for security for costs; the particulars of the defence need not be specified; Sheridan v. Cassidy, 1 W..
N. Cas. (Pa.) 134 ; a rule of court requiring non-residents to enter security for costs does not violate article iv. sec. 2 of the federal constitution, which provides that citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the priv ileges and immunities of the citizens in the several states ; Haney v. Marshall, 9 Md. 194 ; Coleman v. Waters, 13 W. Va. 299.