Case ID: va_14/html/0940-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Chancellor.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wilson v. Triplett.
    Spring Vacation,
    1809.
    Interlocutory Decrees — Affirmation by Appellate Court —Effect.—An interlocutory decree being affirmed by the Court of Appeals, does not change its terms; but it remains to be executed here in the same manner as it did before the appeal; therefore. in this case, the appeal being affirmed without a deduction of war interest on a British debt, such deduction will be made in this Court; especially as the plaintiff is asking the aid of the Court to carry that decree into effect.
    The bill in this case was filed to foreclose a mortgage, dated October, 1774, and the Commissioners to whom the accounts were referred, had reported a balance due thereupon of 6091. 17s. 3d. on the 14th September, 1775, with interest from that time till paid, upon which *this Court, in September, 1793, decreed that unless that sum, with the interest upon that part thereof which was principal money, and the costs', (deducting the amount of a bond of 801. payable 1st October, 1774, and interest due by Francis Willis, which the plaintiff had received and not returned,) should be paid by the 1st day of April, 1794, the defendant was to be barred and foreclosed in his equity to redeem the mortgaged premises, and Commissioners were also appointed to make sale thereof. From this decree there was an appeal, but the decree was affirmed.
    On the 19th March, 1798, the plaintiff and Bernard Hough agreed, that as the latter had bought part of the mortgaged premises for 1,0001. the former should secure the payments due for the same, and relinquish the said mortgage, and look to the said Triplett for any balance that might be due by him.
    In 1801, this Court again appointed Commissioners to ascertain the balance due upon the mortgage, and to carry the decree aforesaid into effect; and they made two statements; 1. Charging the interest for the war, the balance due to the plaintiff was $827 37 cts.' ; 2. Deducting the war interest, a balance of $186 22 cts. was due to the defendant; and they reported, that if the second statement was correct, the balance due thereupon should be subject to the plaintiff’s costs before the date of' his agreement with Hough, by which they conceived the . mortgaged premises to be released.
    In June, 1808, Commissioner Keith, on the motion of the plaintiff, was directed to state the balance due on the mortgage, and to report the same, which he did accordingly. 1. Charging the war interest, and deducting Willis’s bond and interest, on the 14th May, 1789, when it was assigned to the plaintiff, made the balance due to him on the 25th August, 1808, 3331. 12s. 4d. and,
    2. Deducting the war interest and Willis’s bond, on the 14th Sept. 1775, with interest from 1st October, 1774, *made a balance due to the defendant of 581. 11s. 5d. Upon this report three points were submitted to the Court.
    1. As the decree of this Court did not deduct the war interest, and had been affirmed in the Court of Appeals, could that interest now be deducted?
    2. Was not the agreement with Hough a release of the mortgage?
    3. At what time should Willis’s bond be credited?
    
      
      See monographic note on “Appeal and Error” appended to Hill v. Salem, etc., Turnpike Co., 1 Rob. 263.
    
   By the Chancellor.

Upon the first point, the decree of this Court was not a final, but an interlocutory one, and its terms were not changed by being affirmed.

The decree, therefore, remains to be executed, in like manner as it was before the appeal was taken; and as the plaintiff is asking the aid of the Court to carry that decree into effect, he should not complain of the maxim, that he that will have equity done to him, must do it to the same person; and therefore he cannot be allowed interest during the war, as that would' be to allow him what is refused to all other like creditors ; and as this turns the balance against him, there is no necessity of deciding upon the effect of his agreement with Hough; and as to the third point, it is very clear, that the plaintiff should credit the defendant for Willis’s bond and interest, on the 14th September, 1775, when the balance due upon the mortgage was ascertained; and so the Commissioner has, in one of his statements, done it; and the balance due the defendant on the 14th July, 1810, was 581. 11s. 5d. after allowing the plaintiff his costs to that time: which sum, with interest, was decreed to the defendant accordingly.