
    
      Eliza A. Hext and others vs. N. G. W. Walker and others.
    
    To a bill to enjoin execution creditors from proceeding to enforce their executions, the sheriff is not a necessary party. Notice to him of the order for an injunction is sufficient.
    Though a decree as to costs is not the subject matter of appoal, yet while the case is before the Court of Appeals, inadvertency or oversights as to costs, will be corrected there, on the suggestion, or by the consent of the Chancellor who tried the cause.
    
      Before Dargan Oh. at Barnwell, February, 1852,
    Eliza A. Hext, one of the plaintiffs, was the wife of Lawrence P. Hext, one of the defendants, and the other plaintiffs were their children. The defendants were N. G. W. Walker, late sheriff of Barnwell District, William R. Halford,.his successor in office, Lawrence P. Hext, and Maria Fraser and Richard C. Ashe execution creditors of Lawrence P. Hext. To the original bill Halford was not a party: he was made a party, b3r supplemental bill, after he had succeeded to the office.
    Under the executions of Maria Fraser and Richard C. Ashe, certain slaves had been seized as the property of Lawrence P. Hext; and this bill, which claimed that the slaves had been settled to the sole and separate use of Eliza A. Hext for life, with remainder to her children, was for an injunction.
    His Honor, the Chancellor, made the following decree:
    It is ordered and decreed that the levy made upon the negroes in the pleadings be discharged, and that the defendants and their confederates be perpetually enjoined from selling or levying upon the said negroes, under and by virtue of the aforesaid executions, or otherwise disturbing the complainants in their enjoyment of the said negroes. It is further ordered and decreed, that the defendants pay the costs.
    From this decree appeals were taken by Maria Fraser and Richard C. Ashe, but not on the ground that there was error in the decree as to costs. Walker and Halford did not appeal.
    
      Bauskett, for appellant.
    
      Bellinger and Hutson, contra.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Dargah, Oh.

In this case the Court concurs fully in the views which the Chancellor, who tried the cause, has expressed in the circuit decree. And nothing more need be said as to the grounds of appeal taken.

But the Chancellor who rendered the decree suggests, that in decreeing costs against the defendants generally, he has in. advertently given costs against N. G. W. Walker, the ex-sheriff, and Wm. R. Halford, the present sheriff, of Barnwell District, who were formal parties, not interested in the event of the suit and who, in the opinion of the Court, were not necessary parties. An order for an injunction having been made restraining the other defendants from proceeding to enforce their executions at law, notice to the sheriff would have been sufficient without making him a party on the record.

A decree as to costs is not the subject matter of appeal, nor has it been made a ground of appeal in this case. But while the case is before this Court on appeal, inadvertency or oversights as to costs, will be corrected here, on the suggestion, or by the consent, of the Chancellor who tried the cause.

In this case it is ordered and decreed, that the circuit decree as to costs be so modified, that the defendants Walker and Halford be exempt from the payment of any part of the costs ; and that the other defendants pay all the costs.

As to the grounds of appeal taken before and heard by this Court, it is ordered and decreed that the same be disr. dssed, and the circuit decree be affirmed.

Johnston, Dunkin and Wardlaw, CC., concurred.

Decree modified.  