Bunner v. Neil

Bunner v. Neil Costs on removal from the Common Pleas. * After argument, by Swift, for the plaintiff, and Tilghman, for r*.gn the defendant, the rule to stay proceedings was made absolute ; and [*458 the rule for payment of double costs was discharged. See Silvius v. Smith, 3 Yeates 583, and the note to Cooper v. Coats, ante, p. 308 [MAJORITY] This cause was removed by habeas corpus from the court of common pleas of Philadelphia county, and on the trial, a verdict was found in favor of the plaintiff, for él. 10s. 8ci., which the defendant paid to the prothonotar.y, and then moved to stay proceedings, contending, that as the plaintiff’s demand was reduced below 10i., by a direct payment, and not by discount or set-off, the plaintiff must pay the costs. The plaintiff, on the other hand, obtained a rule to show cause why the defendant should not pay double costs, under the act of assembly, which provides, that, if the defendant removes the cause, and a sum under 501. is found for the plaintiff, the defendant shall pay double costs.