
    Simpson’s Appeal. [Simpson’s Estate.]
    The widow of a decedent claimed the benefit of the %vidow’s exemption law; two sons of the decedent by a former wife filed exceptions to her claim an examiner was appointed and the court subsequently entered a decree ordering the executors to pay the claim and payment was made accordingly. In the decree, no provision was made for costs on the exceptions. On application of the-widow, the court subsequently amended the decree so that it should carry “ all the legal costs to which she was subjected therein for examiner’s fees, witness fees, necessary process and clerk’s charges, and that the same should be paid by the sons.”' Held, not to be error.
    Jan. 30, 1889.
    Appeal, No. 211, July T. 1888, to review a. decree of the O. C. Phila. Co., ordering the payment of costs on exceptions to widow’s exemption, at April T. 1886, No. 188. McCollum, and Mitchell, JJ„ absent.
    On June 26, 1886, Mary L. Simpson, widow of Charles Simpson, deceased, presented her petition to the Orphans’ Court, in which she averred that, on April 28, 1888, the court had decreed that the executors of Charles Simpson, deceased, should pay her the sum of $300, widow’s exemption; that she was put to very great expense in resisting the litigation forced upon her by the sons of the decedent by a former wife in and about maintaining her legal rights; that the said decree did not say who should pay the costs, but, inasmuch as the litigation was improperly instituted against her by said sons, they should be made to pay her costs. The petition prayed that the decree should be so amended that the same should carry with it all the legal and proper costs to which she was subjected in said proceedings and that the same should be paid by John *W. and William T: Simpson, said sons of decedent.
    The answer of John W. Simpson and William T. Simpson admitted that the Orphans’ Court had entered the following decrees:
    “And now, to wit, on this 31st day of March, A. D. 1888, the Court having, after argument of counsel, duly considered the exceptions to the allowance of the widow’s exemption, hereby dismiss said exceptions, and order and -decree that the said sum of three hundred dollars, in cash, shall be paid to Mary L. Simpson, the widow of said decedent, by the executors óf his last will and testament.”
    “And now, on the 28th day of April, A. D. 1888, after due consideration, the Court order and direct the executors of the last will of Charles Simpson, deceased, to pay the sum of three hundred dollars, widow’s allowance, to Mary L. Simpson, the widow of said decedent, on or before May 9, 1S88.”
    The answer averred that, in pursuance of said orders, Isaiah O. Wears and William T. Simpson, executors, paid to the attorney of Mary L. Simpson, the sum- of $300, for which he receipted in full.
    The appellants further averred the matters alleged in the assignments of error; and that the decree was properly entered without costsj as the executors were mere stakeholders, and the payment of costs by them would not have been allowed as a proper credit in their account. Appellants also denied that the litigation was improperly instituted, etc.
    The Court entered the following decree: “ July 11,1888. The Court order and direct that the decree entered in the above estate in favor of the widow shall be amended so that the same shall carry with it all the legal costs to which she was subjected therein for examiner’s fees, witness fees, necessary process and clerk’s charges, and that the same shall be paid by John W. and William T. Simpson.” >
    John W. Simpson and William T. Simpson took this appeal.
    
      The assignments of error specified the action of the court in entering the decree of July 11,1888, directing the appellants to pay the costs, 1, because its power over the judgment having been exhausted by the rendition of the former judgment entered March 31,1888 ; 2, inasmuch as the appellant had acquiesced in the former decree of March 31, 1888, by collecting and receiving the debt and receipting in full for the same; 3, the court had no power to amend the decree of March 31, 1888, after it had been fully paid and satisfied ; 4, because there was no allegation of mistake in the petition asking for the same; 5, because it was, in effect, to enter a second judgment after the first had been paid and satisfied; 6, the petition asking for the amendment was insufficient because it did not allege that the money had not been paid under the former decree as required by Act of October 13, 1840, P. L., 1; 7, the Court had no jurisdiction to decree that the appellants, strangers to the decree sought to be amended, should pay the costs; 8, the decree directing the appellants to pay the legal and proper costs to which she was subjected in said proceeding is too vague and indefinite and is incapable of being enforced.
    
      Charles F. Corson, for appellants.
    After money has been paid, in pursuance of a decree of the orphans? court, the decree can not be ■so altered or amended as to make a party liable to pay the money a second time. Hassler’s Ap. 5 Watts, 176.
    The office of an amendment is to correct mere clerical mistakes in entering decrees, not an error in judgment in pronouncing the decree. The effect of the amendment was to allow the entry of a second judgment. Ullery v. Clark, 18 Pa. 148; Stepheus v. Cowan, 6 Watts, 511; Smith v. Hood, 25 Pa. 218.
    Accepting the amount was a satisfaction of the decree and the money having been paid under the decree of March 31, and the peremptory order to pay made April 28th, it is as much a protection as if paid upon a fi fa. issued on the decree. Ullery v. Clark, 18 Pa. 148; Boas v. Updegrove, 5 Pa. 518.
    No mistake is alleged in not giving costs in the original decree, •and as costs in the orphans’ court are discretionary, there is no presumption that it was the intention of the court to direct the payment of costs, but the presumption is to the contrary. Stokely’s Est. 19 Pa. 476; Spangler’s Est. 21 Pa. 335.
    The direction to pay in the decree is too vague in its terms.
    
      Wendell P. Bowman, who was not called on, for appéllee.
    In equity, costs are always awarded to the successful party, unless there are good and equitable reasons for withholding them, or reasons for requiring them to be paid by the successful party. Wadlinger’s Costs, 360; Larimer’s Ap., 22 Pa. 41.
    The payment of the widow’s allowance by the executors does not relieve the sons from the payment of the costs of the litigation which they instituted. The payment of a debt does not relieve from the liability for costs. Wagner v. Wagner, 9 Pa. 214.
    The decree for costs is called an amendment when really in ■effect it is a separate independent decree against the sons. The court did what has always been allowed in practice. Zell v. Arnold, 3 P. & W. 292, citing Stores v. Tong, Pep. & Ca. of Prac. in
    Jan. 30, 1889.
   Per Curiam,

Decree affirmed.  