In this case, which was brought up by appeal from the county of Austin, it appears that the plaintiff instituted an action of debt against W. P. Huff and Thomas Barrett, by filing his petition in the office of the defendant, who was the clerk of the District Court of Austin County; that the defendant failed and refused to issue the citation prayed for in the petition as required by law, unless the plaintiff should first pay the cost thereof. At the fall term, 1841, of the district court, the plaintiff filed his motion for a rule against the defendant to show cause why he had not issued the writ of citation prayed for. The clerk answered to the rule, that the papers were duly prepared by him and tendered to the plaintiff upon the payment of costs, or on the plaintiff entering into security therefor. The rule was *530discharged by the court below. By reference to the act of Congress establishing the jurisdiction and powers of the district court, volume 1, section 17, page 203, it will be seen that when any original process shall issue out of any court in this Republic, the plaintiff at the return of such process, or any time thereafter before final judgment, shall upon the motion of any person interested be ruled to give sufficient security for all costs, etc. The terms of the act gave the clerk no discretion. It was his imperative duty to have issued the citation and on the return of the process, or at any time thereafter, he might have made his motion for security for costs.
The rule should have been granted. It is therefore the unanimous opinion of .the court that the judgment of the court below be reversed and the case remanded.
Reversed and remanded.