
    *Garnett v. Childers.
    Tuesday, May 7th, 1811.
    Appeal — Who Hay Appeal— After Hie term at which a decree Is rendered, an appeal ought not to be granted to a defendant who has been ordered to pay costs, but appears, from his answer, to have no right to the sub: ect In controversy.
    A suit at law having been brought, and judgment obtained, in the names of James Webb and Thomas C. Martin, executors of Jesse Carter, deceased, against John Childers, upon a bond which a certain Reuben Garnett, as agent for Carter, in his lifetime, took of Childers for the price of a negro sold him ; he filed a bill of injunction in the late high court of chancery, on the ground that the transaction was usurious; making- the executors of Carter and Reuben Garnett both defendants in equity.
    The defendant Garnett, in his answer, after denying the charge of usury, said, that “he had no farther purchased the debt than that he lent money to the said Carter, and there were other things unsettled between them, and this money, now demanded of the complainant, would be applied, when received, to the credit of the said Carter, pound for pound, after deducting the commission and expenses of collection.”
    James Webb, one of Carter’s executors, by his answer, claimed the debt as belonging to the estate of his testator.
    The complainant replied generally to both the answers; and, after depositions were taken, the cause was set for hearing, as to the defendant Garnett, upon his motion by counsel; but does not appear to have been set for hearing as to the other defendants.
    Upon the evidence, the late chancellor made the injunction perpetual, to stay execution of so much of the judgment as exceeded the principal sum of money stated in the bill, and decreed that the defendants pay the complainant his costs in this court; from which decree the defendant Garnett was allowed an appeal, in the next vacation after the term when it was rendered.
    ^Williams, for the appellant,
    contended that the complainant must have considered Garnett interested in the controversy; otherwise he would not have made him a party. He is bound to Carter’s representatives, and responsible if they lose the debt. This court, in Armistead v. Marks, 1 Wash. 325, decided that an appeal by one party brings up the whole record, and the reversal may be as to all.
    Wickham. We made Garnett a defendant to obtain a discovery of the usury; and though his answer denies it, we had a right to go on to establish it by proof ; for we sued for relief as well as discovery, 
    
    The case of Armistead v. Marks applies only to a joint judgment. Here Webb does not complain of the decree. The decree against him perpetuates the injunction to stay proceedings on his judgment; but that against Garnett is for costs only. He therefore had no right to appeal, having no interest in the debt in controversy. In Craddock v. Ellzey, the court would not touch the case as it respected the other parties, Craddock only having appealed: Judge Roane was inclined to reverse the decree in toto, considering it as an entire decree ; but Fleming and Tucker were of a different opinion. It was therefore reversed as to Craddock only.
    
      
       Appeals. — An appeal cannot be taken from a chancery conrt on the ground that the appellant has been improperly decreed to pay costs. Ashby v. Kiger, 3 Rand. 165, citing principal case. See also, monographic note on “Appeal and Error” appended to Hill v. Salem, etc., Turnpike Co., 1 Rob. 263.
    
    
      
       Chichester’s Executrix v. Vass’s Administrator, 1 Munf. 98.
    
    
      
       May, 1810. not reported.
    
   Friday, May 10th. The president pronounced the opinion of the court, that the appeal be dismissed, having been improvidently granted.  