
    William Smith v. Bethuel Dodd and another.
    The decision of a judge at special term, granting costs to the defendant from the time of answer, as a condition of permission to the plaintiff to amend the complaint, is not appealable.
    In order to review, at general term, the propriety of imposing such costs as a condition, the appellant must obtain a certificate of the judge, in pursuance of the rule of March 22, 1851. 
    
    Dueieg the trial of this cause before one of the judges of this court and a jury, the court excluded certain testimony offered by the plaintiff, and suggested that an amendment of the complaint would be requisite in order to render the proposed evidence admissible. The plaintiff then requested leave to withdraw a juror, which was allowed upon payment of the costs of the then present term.
    A motion was afterwards made at a special term, before "Woodruff, J., for permission to amend the complaint. The motion was granted, upon condition that the defendant be paid his costs since the service of the answer to the original complaint.
    An order having been entered in accordance with the decision, the plaintiff appealed therefrom so far as related to the condition as to costs. It was stated by counsel that the amount of such costs was not less than from three hundred and fifty to four hundred dollars.
    
      Peter Y. Cutler, for the plaintiff.
    
      James Sandford and Mortimer Porter, for the defendants.
    
      
      
         For the rule referred to, see 2 E. D. Smith p. 32, note a.
      
    
   By the Court.

We think this order was not appealable, without a certificate of the judge, and we dismiss the appeal, without costs.

Ordered accordingly.  