
    *William Cartwright v. Peter Sole.
    The judgment for costs rendered in the Supreme Court, upon the affirmance or reversal of a judgment, only embraces the costs accruing on error, and none of the costs which accrued in the court below.
    This is a writ of certiorari, directed to the court of common pleas of Pike county.
    Cartwright, the plaintiff in this proceeding, sued Sole in the court of common pleas of Pike county, and on the trial of the cause was nonsuited. He then sued out a writ of error from the Supreme Court, and the latter court reversed the judgment of the common pleas, with costs, and remanded the cause for further proceedings.
    A mandate having been sent to the dourt of common pleas, the clerk of that court, in taxing costs against Sole, included the costs of Cartwright of the term at which the case was tried. Sole thereupon moved the court for a retaxation of costs, which motion was sustained, and the clerk directed to tax against him none of the costs which accrued in the common pleas. To reverse this decision of the court of common pleas, upon the motion for a re-taxation of costs, this writ is prosecuted.
    Le Grand Byington, for plaintiff.
    Thurman & Sherer, for defendant.
   Read, J.

This case was reserved to declare the rule of taxation of costs under statute for the instruction of clerks, and to remove doubts which seem to exist with some as to what costs are to be taxed on an affirmance or reversal of a judgment on writ of error. Section 122 of the practice act, Swan’s Stat. 681, ^provides, that when a judgment is reversed, the plaintiff in error shall recover his costs; when a judgment is affirmed, the defendant in error shall recover his costs.

The judgment of reversal or affirmance only embraces the costs made under the proceeding or writ of error. In ease of affirmance, there has already been a judgment for the costs of the original proceeding; on reversal the costs of the original proceeding must abide the event of the suit.

The clerk of the Supreme Court taxes the costs embraced in the judgment for costs in the Supreme Court on writ of error.

The court below, therefore, did not err in refusing to permit the court to tax all the cost of the original proceeding on the mandate to carry the judgment of reversal of the Supremo Court into execution. Judgment affirmed.  