662 ANDREWS v. SCOTTON.

also came in on the 20th of March, 1828, and shewed for cause
against this order, that the orders of the 8th of January and 17th
of April, 1823, under which those surveyor's fees had accrued,
having been affirmed, they could not now be opened for the pur-
pose of taxing the costs anew. And that the surveyor had by his
own neglect precluded himself from claiming those costs; because
Anderson could not have recovered them from the trustee in case
the order of ratification had been reversed.

24th March, 3828.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The matter of the
petition of the surveyor standing ready for hearing, and the solici-
tors of the parties having been fully heard, the proceedings were
read and considered.

It is very clear, that if the surveyor had made out a bill of his
legal fees upon the plot and certificate returned by him on the 19th
of March, 1823, they would have been taxed by the register as a
part of the costs properly incident to the order of the 17th of
April, 1823, from which Anderson appealed; and consequently,
would, with the other costs arising out of the same controversy,
have been ordered by the Court of Appeals, in their affirmance of
that order of the 16th of July, 1825, to be paid by Anderson.
Hence it is evident, that Scotton's estate should not now be charged
with these fees, as those who claim that estate have no means of
obtaining reimbursement from Anderson, now that their fieri facias
on that judgment of the 16th of July, 1825, of the Court uf Ap-
peals, has been fully satisfied; for it is not pretended, that it was,
in any respect, their fault, that the surveyor's fees were not com-
prehended by that judgment. It is evident, that these fees ought
to have constituted a part of the costs which Anderson was ordered
to pay by the judgment of the Court of Appeals; but now, in this
stage of the proceeding, after the affirmance of the order of the
17th of April, 1823, this court has no power to open that judg-
ment, so as to let in these costs as a part of it; nor can this court
now, in this summary way, enforce the payment of any sum of
money which ought to have formed a component part of that judg-
ment, and which had been omitted by the negligence of the party
himself. If the surveyor has any remedy, it must be by a special
action on the case against Anderson. Therefore, it is Ordered, that
the said petition be, and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.

The trustee Boyle, by his petition, filed on the 26th of July,
1828, stated, that the Court of Appeals had affirmed the order of