case Owen against Griffith that June where tenant by elegit have receive rend  and profit beyond the debt though he shall account to the debtor yet he shall  not pav cost in such case appeal may be for the cost only where defendant  decree to pay they lib Reg b foe S c Ves bill by plaintiff for a account of  rend and to be let into possession against defendant who be in possession  under a elegit for satisfaction of a debt account decree at the bolls  afterward report that defendant have receive pound S d more than due to her  Cause come on upon report it be order that possession shall be deliver the  defendant to pay the S d together with the plaintiff cost from which order  defendant appeal general and the only reason for the appeal be the cost two  question on hear saint whether the rule be so general that a party can appeal  for cost d whether as the defendant be a encumbrancer the estate be not as  much liable to pay the cost as the debt ambler Lord Hardwicke chancellor  declare the rule be not so general with respect to party appeal for cost only  that in particular case such rule may and have be dispense with and think it  ought to be dispense with in this case decree reverse as to cost vide turner v  turner that may Eq can Abr Carwardine v Carwardine that Nov Eden Pitt v page  in dom proc brown parliament case Q whether the court will dispense with the  rule only in such case where it appear on the face of the decree that cost be  improper give or whether they will do it where they must go into the merit of  the cause see the report of Lord hardwicke judgement in this case give in  vesey more at length ambler er p the general rule be that there can be no  appeal for cost only Wirdman v ken dick S c bro c c see also in the case of  Cowper v Scott Eden jenour v jenour Ves tailor v Popham Ves this rule may  however under particular circumstance be dispense with Cowper v Scott Eden in  tailor v Popham ub sup Lord Eldon take the distinction that where the cost  have be dispose of as a matter of relief though they be subject of appeal it  be not a appeal for cost only see jenour v jenour Ves there have be several  case where upon appeal the decree have be reverse as to cost and affirm as to  the remainder Pitt v page bro p c Wickett v baby bro PC moire v maddin ib in  hannam v south London water work company mere Lord Eldon say there be no  instance to be find in which this court have restore a bill which have be  regular dismiss for the mere purpose of agitate the question of cost but in  turner v turner Eq can Abr S where a suit be institute on behalf of a infant  who do not proceed after he come of age the prochein any be dead the bill be  bring on by defendant on further direction and dismiss against the infant with  cost a rehear be grant on the question of cost only and as to they the former  decree reverse see beam on cost attorneygeneral v butcher hill term before  Lord chancellor to be report by Mr Russell