
    Bachman v. Gross, Appellant.
    
      Ejectment—Divided verdict—Disclaimer—Costs.
    
    In an action of ejectment for land in the possession of the defendant, where the jury find a verdict for the plaintiff for a part and for the defendant for a part, and no disclaimer was filed by defendant, plaintiff is entitled to full costs.
    
      Frivolous appeal—Penalty—Act of May 25, 1874.
    
    An appeal in such ease is of such a trifling nature that the penalty of $20 counsel’s fee will be imposed under the Act of May 25,1874, P. L. 227.
    Argued May 23, 1892.
    Appeal, No. 159, July T., 1891, by defendant, Amelia Gross et ah, from judgment of C. P. Northumberland Co., Sept. T., 1888, No. Ill, on verdict for plaintiff, W. D. Bachman et ux.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, McCollum and Mitchell, JJ.
    Ejectment for land in defendant’s possession. Verdict for plaintiff for part and for defendant as to rest. No disclaimer having been filed, judgment was entered for plaintiff for full costs.
    
      Error assigned was such entry of judgment.
    
      S. B. Boyer, for appellant, cited Lane v. Harold, 66 Pa. 319.
    
      Greo. B. B,eimensnyder, for appellee.
    July 13, 1892.
   Per Curiam,

This was an ejectment in the court below. The only speci- . fication of error is that the court imposed full costs, the defendants not having filed a disclaimer. The ruling of the court below is so clearly right, and the appeal itself of such a trifling nature, that we not only affirm the judgment, but also impose the penalty of $20 counsel fee, provided by the act of assembly for frivolous appeals.  