
    Harmon Wheeler v. Elijah Lucas.
    Where a plaintiff appellant does not recover more in the Supreme Court than he did in the common pleas, judgment must go against him for costs.
    This is a writ of error from Ashtabula county.
    
      Lucas sued Wheeler in slander. Ho recovered in the common pleas a judgment of four dollars. Ho appealed, and recovered a judgment, in the. Supreme Court, for $2.14. The Supremo Court adjudged that each party pay his own costs.
    Wade & Ranney, for plaintiff in error:
    The object of this writ of error is to reverse the judgment so far as the costs in the Supremo Court are concerned, and to have a judgment entered against the plaintiff below for all costs *that accrued in that court. It is only necessary to refer the court to section 126 of the practice act. Swan’s Stat. 683. It is provided, “that if the plaintiff appealing shall not recover a greater sum in the Supreme Court than in the court of common pleas, exclusive of costs and interest which may have accrued since the rendition of the judgment in the court of common pleas, he shall pay all costs that may have accrued in the Supreme Court in such case.” See also Waters v. Lemon et al., 3 Ohio, 72.
    No argument was submitted on the other side.
   Lane, C. J.

We think the judgment is erroneous. The statute regulating our practice, Swan’s Stat. 687, sec. 126, requires a judgment against a plaintiff for the costs of the Supreme Court, if he appeals, and recovers no larger verdict than in the common pleas.

The judgment of the Supreme Court will be reversed, and judgment hero entered, that the defendant recover the costs of the Supreme Court. Judgment accordingly.  