The court held that the discretion to order security for costs must be exercised judiciously, considering all relevant circumstances. In this case, although the plaintiffs had failed to pay costs from a previous suit and had filed multiple suits involving the same parties, the pleadings from the previous cases were not before the court, making it impossible to determine if the current suit was res judicata or if the plaintiffs were vexatious litigants. The mere fact that costs from a previous suit remain unpaid does not, in itself, justify an order for security for costs, especially when there are established procedures for execution of costs that have not been shown to be exhausted. Therefore, the application for security for costs was dismissed as the threshold for granting such an order was not met.