
    *Ross v. Gordon.
    Monday, May 13th, 1811.
    1. Injunction — Costs.—where an injunction is perpetuated in part, the complainant ought, in general, not to he decreed to pay costs, 
    
    2. Same — Same—Appeal.— In such case, the error of awarding costs against the complainant is sufficient, upon his appeal, to reverse the decree, though right in every other respect.
    In this case the present chancellor for the Richmond district, on the 22d day of September, 1806, decreed that the injunction awarded “the plaintiff, (Ross,) the 12th day of October, 180S, to stay execution of a judgment recovered against him by the defendant, (Gordon,) in the district court of Richmond, be dissolved as to 721. 17s. 1 l-2d with interest thereupon, at the rate of five per cent, per annum, from the first day of November, 1791, and the costs expended by the defendant at common law, and be perpetual as to the residue ; and that the plaintiff pay to the defendant the costs by him in his defence expended.”
    
      
       Injunction — Costs.—If a party plaintiff in injunction succeeds in obtaining a perpetuation as to part, lie is entitled to costs. Donally v. Ginatt, 5 Leigh 363, citing the principal case. But if there was no necessity of coming into equity, he ought not to have his costs. Donally v. Ginatt, 5 Leigh 363. The principal case was also cited in Tracy v. Tracy, 14 W. Va. 252, on the subject of costs.
      See generally, monographic note on “Injunctions” appended to Claytor v. Anthony, 15 Gratt. 518; monographic note on “Costs” appended to Jones v. Tatum, 19 Gratt. 720.
    
    
      
       Same — Same—Appeal,—To the point that an appellate court may reverse a decree for error in decreeing costs, though in all other respects the decree be affirmed, the principal case was cited in Donally v. Ginatt, 5 Leigh 363; Ashby v. Kiger, 3 Rand. 166: Peers v. Barnett, 12 Gratt. 423: Bee v. Burdett. 23 W. Va. 748.
      See further, monographic note on ‘Costs” appended to Jones v. Tatum, 19 Gratt. 720; mono-graphic note on “Appeal and Error” appended to Hill v. Salem, etc., Turnpike Co., 1 Rob. 263.
    
   The plaintiff appealed; and, after argument by the Attorney-General, for the appellant, and Copland, for the appellee, the following was entered as the decree of this court.

“The court is of opinion that there is error in so much of the said decree as awards costs against the appellant, inasmuch as he, by his injunction; obtained relief against the execution issued upon the judgment of the district court, to the amount of the sum for which the same was perpetually enjoined, and was so far the party prevailing in the cause; but that there is no error in the residue of the said decree; therefore, it is decreed and ordered, that so much of the said decree as is mentioned above to be erroneous, be reversed and annulled; that the residue thereof be affirmed; and that the appellee pay to the appellant *his costs by him expended, as well in prosecuting his-suit in the said superior court of chancery, as in the prosecution of his appeal aforesaid here.”  