
    Pratt against Naglee and others.
    
      Tuesday, December 26.
    Onanappeal by the "defendant from an award of arbitrators, if the plaintiff ®aver* smaliersum the dereturn of the costs paid on the appeal; and with res* pect to the costs accrued since the appeal, each htó wucosuf
    THE state of the case on which the Court was request- „ . . . » c m ed to give its opinion, was as follows :
    The plaintiff entered a rule of arbitration on the 23d Octo~ her, 1816, and an award in his favour for 1642 dollars, 46 cents, with interest from the 6th February, 1817, was filed on the 9th April, 1817. From this award ;the defendants pealed on the 29th April, 1817, and paid the costs. On the 13th March, 1818, the cause was tried, when the plaintiff oh-1 ^ ’ . 4 tained a verdict for 1328 dollars 41 cents, and six cents costs,
    The questions to be decided, were 1
    . 1st. Whether the defendants were entitled to a return of the costs paid on the appeal, and to recover them from the plaintiff?
    2d. Whether the defendants or the plaintiff were bound to pay the costs which accrued subsequent to the appeal ?
    
      Chauncey, for the plaintiff.
    
      J.R. Ingersoll,for the defendants.
   Tilghman C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The points submitted in this case were fully considered and decided in the case of Landis (in error) v. Shaeffer, Lancaster district, May Term, 1818.- To the opinion delivered in that case I refer for the reasons which governed the Court. In the case before us, I am of opinion, 1. That the defendants are not entitled to a return of the costs paid on the appeal. 2. That as to the costs which have accrued since the appeal, there is no recovery on either side, but each party pays his own costs. 
      
       Siuee reported in 4 Serg. Si Raiole, 196.
     