
    
      In re Hood’s Estate.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    June 25, 1888.)
    Costs—On Appeal—Construction of Order.
    The words “with costs ” in an order of reversal or affirmance in the court of appeals, in a case where the allowance of costs is discretionary, means costs in the court of appeals only, and the supreme court has no power to allow costs after such a disposition of the case. Following In re Commissioners, 10 N. E. Rep. 545.
    Appeal from surrogate’s court.
    The appeal in this proceeding is from a part of an order made by Dykman, J., founded upon the remittitur of the court of appeals reversing an order made by this court at general term affirming an order of the surrogate of Westchester county, directing that Frederick Hood render an account. The order made by Dykman, J., allowed Hood the costs in the court of appeals, and also in this court and the surrogate’s court, and directed taxation thereof. From that part of the order which allowed costs in this and the surrogate’s court this appeal is taken.
    
      Roe <6 Mauklin, for appellants. Edward P. Wilder, for respondents.
   Pratt, J.

This is an appeal from an order allowing costs. The court of appeals reversed the case, with costs. The ease was one where costs were discretionary. This decision of the court of appeals meant costs in that court only, and the supreme court had no power to aUow costs after such a disposition of the case. In re Commissioners, 104 N. Y. 677, 10 N. E. Rep. 545, and cases there cited. This decision disposes of the matter. The order must be reversed, with costs and disbursements.  