
    Fraley against Nelson.
    
      Tuesday, June 14.
    If the appellant. on an appeal from the award of arbitrators pays all the pays all the costs then taxed by the prothonotary, the appeal is valid, though some of the costs due, have been omitted.
    The remedy for the costs omitted, is by order of the Court for the ir payment, and attachment; on non-compliance jvith such order.
    In Emqr,
    ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming COlinty.
    1 This cause having been submitted to arbitrators, an'award was made in favour of the defendant, on the 28th February, 1819. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, bn the 28th March, following, gave the security requited by law, and paid all the costs, which were then taxed'by the prothonotary. On the 2d May, 1816, the defendant procured his bill of costs to be taxed by the prothonotary, and in September, 1816, demanded them of the plaintiff, who refused to pay them. On the 9th May, 1817, the Court granted a rule on the plaintiff to shew cause, why the appeal should not be struck off, for non-payment of costs; and on the 3d September, 1816, the Court directed the appeal to be struck off, unless the plaintiff should pay the costs before 3 o’clock in the afternoon of that day ; and the costs not being paid, the appeal was struck off, and judgment entered on the award.
    Burneston, for the plaintiff in error,
    referred to the act of 2,0th March, 1810, sect. 12, which provides, “ that no appeal shall be allowed to either party, until the appellant pay gll the costs that may have accrued on such suit or action.” All costs which were taxed, when this appeal was entered, were paid by the appellant. It is the duty of the party who files the award, to give to the prothonotary his bill of costs, and have them taxed. Those only are due, which are taxed-.
    Hepburn, contra.
    The words of the law have not been complied with: all the costs have not been paid. The appellant knew that costs had accrued on the other side: it was his duty to ask for the bill of costs. The party who files an award, cannot know that an appeal will be entered; it may be done so quickly, that he may not have time to file his bill of costs. The appellant gives no security for costs accruing before, the appeal: they may therefore be lost, in case of his insolvency, unless there is a remedy by dismissing his appeal on refusal to pay them. .
    
      Reply. If the costs are not paid, - the Court might issue an attachment, instead of striking off the appeal. The law should be so construed as to favour, not to restrain appeals.
   Per Curiam.

This cause having been submitted to arbitrators, an award was made in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, gave the security required by law, and paid all the costs which, were taxed at the time of entering the appeal. After the cause had been sometime depending in the Court of Common Pleas, an order was made, that,the plaintiff should pay the costs °f defendant, which had not been taxed when the appeal was entered; and for non-compliance with this order, the Court dismissed the appeal. We are of opinion, that the appeal was well entered, by payment of all costs taxed at that time ; and being entered, the Court of Common Pleas could not dismiss it. But the defendant is not t©-lose those costs which were not taxed, at the-time of entry of the appeal. The Court of Common Pleas may make an order for payment, and enforce their order by attachment. We are of opinion, that the judgment should be reversed, and the record remitted to the Court of Common Pleas, with an order to proceed in the appeal.

Judgment reversed.  