¶1 delivered the opinion of the Court:
¶2 The act of 1787, does not demand a construction -which would necessarily deprive a portion of the community of ail means of having their claims investigated in a court of justice; And unless necessity required it, we are not disposed to put such a construction upon it. The true meaning of the 1 w seems to be, to require all *248 such persons;to give security previously, to taking out a writ, as would have been liable for the payment of costs in the event of failing in the suit. But it does not ren* der any person liable to the payment of costs, who was-not so, before. Now the statute of 23 Henry VIL ch. 15, excuses paupers from payment of costs. And a law founded «pon principles of such obvious justice,, ought to bo repealed by express words or necessary implication, before the court hastens to-that conclusion. For, indeed, the two statutes are perfectly compatible, and being in pari materia, should both have operation, and may be construed together. On this ground, we think that persons may sue in this state, in form a pauperis, upon satisfying the court that they have a reasonable ground of action, and from their extreme poverty are unable to procure security.