
    HIGBEE et al. vs. BOWERS.
    A decree, “that the defendant pay the complainant his costs herein expended, and that execution issue therefor,” is no final decree, from which an appeal will lie.
    APPEAL from Platte.
    Hickman, for the Appellant.
    E. L. Edwards, for Appellee.
    POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.
    1. Nothing can be assigned for error in this court “except such as was made the subject of exceptions below.” See Swearingen vs. Newman, 4 M. R. 456; Shelton vs. Ford&Whitehill, 7 Mo. R. 211; Steamboat T. vs. Erskine & Gore, lb. 251.
    2. The defendant excepted, first, to the introduction of the lease, made an exhibit in the bill; second, to the overruling of the motion to set aside the decree; third, to the exclusion of certain deeds offered by them in evidence.
   Scott, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only decree in this case is, that the defendants pay the complainant his costs herein expended, and that execution issue therefor. It does not appear what has become of the bill or the suit; for aught that appears, it may be still pending. This, then, is not a final decree, within the meaning of the statute, from which an appeal or writ of error will lie. Let the appeal be dismissed.  