
    HARRIS’ APPEAL.
    An appeal to the Supreme Court does not lie from the action of the Court in taking a bill of costs even where the appellant alleges he ia not liable for any costs.
    Appeal from the Common Pleas No. 2, of Philadelphia County, No. 32, January Term, 1883.
    This was an appeal by Henry G. Harris, a garnishee, from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas No. 2, dismissing his exceptions to the taxation of costs. In the case of Wainwright and Bryant vs. Moores et al. defendants, H. G. Harris et al., garnishees. At the time of the service of the attachment, Moores were building houses, and had borrowed from Harris large sums, upon the security of mortgages on the houses. They failed before the houses were completed. The properties were sold by the Sheriff. Harris agreed that Mooresshould have the properties finished and sell them; and after repaying himself and all mortgage creditors, and expenses, to hand Moores the surplus, if any, for the purpose of settling with their creditors. Moores to assist in the completion of the houses. Plarris had proceeded with the completion of the houses, paying all bills. He had sold most of them, but had not yet received all the proceeds. No balance had been realized in favor of Moores. No final account had been stated. The attachment was served on Harris, Moorc-s claiming that some $3,000 were due to them. Harris made answer that nothing was due. The jury found that $5.53 was due by Harris to Moores. The plaintiffs claim costs, because the verdict was for the plaintiffs; and that the garnishee had in his hands $5.53. and that he had pleaded nulla bom. Garnishee claimed costs, because at the date of the service of attachment no-amount could have been admitted, should the defendant garnishee have realized no balance in favor of the defendant, the accounts being unsettled. On the trial Harris admitted a sum of $1,500 in the course of collection, and that the amount of $5.53 was only arrived at after the settlement of the $1,500 claim, and that the sum of $5.53 would have been consumed by garnishee’s just and proper counsel fees and costs in the. case, and the plaintiffs would recover nothing. The court imposed costs upon the garnishee, and Harris then appealed.
    
      H. G. & A. W. Harris, Esqs., for appellant,
    argue 1 that, in a case like this, the costs of trial cannot he said to be occasioned by the fault of the garnishee, and he is not held liable for them; Coles vs. Sellers, 1 Phila., 533; Myers vs. Baltzell, 37 Penna., 493; Newlin vs. Scott, 26 Penna. 102. The result of this case was a full victory for the garnishee, and entitled him to costs. The plaintiffs having demanded $2,600, while the garnishee’s admission of $5.53 was allowed to the plaintiffs.
    
      William H. Peace, Esq., for appellees,
    argued that as moréis proved of the plaintiff, than is admitted by the answer, the costs should be paid by the garnishee; Walker vs. Wallace, 2 Dallas, 113; Newlin vs. Scott, 26 Penna., 103. The appeal and certiorari in this case should be quashed; McCauley’s Appeal, 86 Penna., 187.
    
      H. G. & A. W. Harris, in reply;
    McCauley’s Appeal does not decide; that the Supreme Court will not determine questions as to which party is liable for costs.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Common Pleas on February 5th, 1883, in the following opinion :

Per Curiam.

All the specifications of error relate to the taxation of costs in a case in which there was a verdict and judgment against the appellant. The complaint is for taxing some against him and for refusing to tax others against the plaintiff in the judgment. If the defendant suffered any legal wrong in the taxation of costs, it cannot be rectified by an appeal. An appeal does not lie; McCauley’s Appeal, 86 Pa., 187.

Appeal quashed.  