Case Name: Seely against Barton
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1819-12-27
Citations: 5 Serg. & Rawle 390
Docket Number: 
Parties: Seely against Barton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Sergeant & Rawle)
Volume: 5
Pages: 390–391

Head Matter:
Seely against Barton.
Tuesday, December 27.
On appeal from an award of arbitrators, the costs of a former award in the same suit which was set aside by the Court, without imposing any terms, must be paid by the appellant.
IN ERROR.
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadel- - . ptlia COUHty.
Thomas W. Barton, (the plaintiff below,) brought suit against Solomon Sealy, before Justice Moulder, and obtained judgment for 27 dollars 25 cents. Sealy appealed to the Court of Common Pleas ; in which Court the plaintiff entered a rule of' arbitration on which there was an award in his favour of five dollars, and the costs of suit. This award was set aside by the Court of Common Pleas : after which the plaintiff entered another rule of arbitration, and obtained an award for 27 dollars 25 cents. From this award the defendant appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, and paid all the costs except those which had accrued on the award which had been set aside, and these he refused to pay. The Court ©f Common Pleas dismissed the appeal, because the costs last mentioned, had not been paid by the appellant. Whether the appeal was well entered was now the question.
Mahaney, for the plaintiff in error.
Page, contra.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Tilghman C. J.
The appeal from the report of the arbitrators, is given by'the 11th section of the " act regulating arbitrations," passed 20th March, 1810; and it is expressly provided, " that no appeal shall be allowed to either party, until the appellant pay all the costs that may have accrued on such suit or action." When the report on the first rule of reference in this case, was set aside, the Court imposed no terms or condition, with respect to the payment of costs. According to the usual practice, therefore, it was to be understood, that the costs on that rule of reference, were to abide the final event of the suit. Consequently they were thrown into the general mass of costs, and it was as much incumbent on the appellant to pay them, as any other costs, previous to the entry of the appeal. We are therefore of opinion, that the appeal was not well entered, and was properly dismissed.
Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas affirmed.