
    Phillips and Another v. Nicholas.
    ERROR to the Rush Circuit Court.
    The only error complained of in this case was, that the judgment below was for too large an amount. The defendant in error was permitted, upon his application, to enter a remittitur on the record of this Court, for the surplus, and then the judgment was affirmed, but without costs in error .
    
      W. W. Wick, for the plaintiffs.
    O. H. Smith, for the defendant.
    
      
       The Supreme Court of the United States 'permitted a remittitur to be entered in a case similar to that in the text. The following is the formal entry:
      “ ‘Supreme Court of the United States of January term, in the year of our Lord, 1829. Be it remembered, that on the trial of this cause before the Supreme Court of the United States, on a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Kentucky, -on the 14th day of February, in the year aforesaid, it appeared that one of the sixty-eight bills upon which the declaration purported to count severally, to‘ wit, a bill for the amount of 50 dollars, had been omitted in said declaration; the declaration making out a less, sum, and one debt less in number, than the writ claimed or the judgment gave. And hereupon the said John Ashley and John Ella, jun., defendants in error, by Daniel J. Caswell their attorney and counsel in this Court, freely here in Court remit to .the said president and directors of the Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, plaintiffs in error as aforesaid in this cause, as well the said debt of 50 dollars so omitted as aforesaid, the residue of the debt aforesaid, together with interest on the said 50 dollars at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum, from the 22d day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1825, as also damages pro tanto. As witness our hands this 14th day of February, in the year of our Lord, 1829. John Ashley and John Ella, jun., by Daniel J. Caswell, their attorney and counsel in this Court.’
      “Whereupon it is considered, ordered, and adjudged by this Court, that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed without costs, deducting from the said judgment of the said Circuit Court, the amount so deducted as aforesaid.” Bank of Kentucky v. Ashley et al. 2 Peters, 327.
    
     