
    Davenport v. Mason.
    
    April Term, 1796.
    .Appeal-Qutere, — if an appeal can he taken from a decree dissolving an injunction with costs
    The appellee, obtained an injunction in the County Court, to a judgment rendered against him in the same court. After answer put in, a motion was made to dissolve, and on a hearing the court over-ruled the motion, but continued the cause and awarded commissions to take depositions. At a subsequent court, on hearing the bill, answer, depositions and exhibits, the court dissolved the injunction, and decreed the plaintiff in that court to pay costs.
    *From this decree the defendant appealed. The High Court of Chancery directed issues between the parties, which were accordingly tried and a verdict certified thereon. The Chancellor reversed the decree of the County Court, and decreed a •perpetual injunction, from which Davenport appealed.
    Mr. Campbell for the appellant contended,
    that the decree of the County Court was interlocutory, since it only dissolved the injunction. That no appeal could have been taken until the decree was made final by a dismission of the bill; until this was ■done, the cause was still depending.
    Mr. Marshall for the appellee
    insisted, that this is a decree for costs and, as to that, is final. But if not final, then the County Court erred in decreeing costs, and therefore the reversing decree is right either way.
    
      
       Costs — Motion to Dissolve Injunction. — Costs should not be taxed upon overruling' or sustaining a motion to dissolve an injunction. Barnett v. Spencer, 2 Hen. & M. 7. The court said: “This is not like the case of Davenport o. Mason. 2 Wash. 200. The decree in that case was made in the regular course of the docket, upon the final hearing ot the cause ; but, in this case, it was only a, motion to dissolve ; and costs were improperly decreed.”
      See monographic note on “Costs” appended to Jones v. Tatum, 19 Gratt. 720.
      Decrees — Interlocutory and Final. — The principal ■case is cited in Royall v. Johnson. 1 Rand. 427 ; Core •V. Strickler, 24 W. Va. 695. See foot-note to doming v. Bolling, 8 Gratt. 292, and monographic note on “Decrees” appended to Evans v. Spurgin, 11 Gratt. ■615.
    
   The court

affirmed the decree of the High ■•Court of Chancery.  