Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-04-09
A true copy. Attest, c ". EELsOs. CLERK.
Bryan Anderson a Co. 49, D. date. : q.

Bryan Anderson Co. -. ,. D. dates 4 q.
WehsVe been ussble ts Sod any error Ia the de-
cree CT The Chancellor In this case.
In the first place complsinanIs' exceptions are tee
general 10 be available. The .C'erk God Hasssr'B
report must staRd, anless specific srrora to q aro
pointed out in the exceptions. The frst exesptioa
is not well taken in fact because the Masters ~
port does, Substantially pursue the inftFlooatoFv
decree, and embraces everything necessary 70 fin
settlement between the parties
The remaining two exceptions are TO the EkoIs
repOrt-the aggregate sums, or balances found de
BY the Master. This is too general They should
baVe been 10 the particular liens Of error, II any
existed in the report Bu il this we're nOt 30. "
think the merits CT he case sgaiust eomplainaas.
The chief objection in the argument 10 the report
OF the Master, is that he allowed he charges A.
legged by the defendant 70 have beea paid upon de
wheat shipped By complainant 10 him, 10 sell e
New York They are said 10 be excessive. And
the proof q several witnesses Il fled showing that
ON 40 70 So cents per bushel, are the usual GaA
customary charges And in thts case, in many ins
stances, thsy exceed the sum very greatly aRd ars
apparaEtiy excessive. But as this record Prasents
the case, this matter il easily answered In the
first place. as to al the wheat except the Lass lOl
and this embraces most Of the dealings an aessunf
Ct the So IS a5d charges. nsde 0uf and rendsr-
ed eomplsinants ia January, 1856, to which thaV
seem 10 have made little. II any objection, and Il
April. 1856, after the entire aceOant bad been ~
deFed, they write defea6sai, sdVsing him that his
account against them had eons 70 hRnd, and Baula
receive their attention soon, snd DO aOa thea con-
plain Of errors. charges And 10 fling thsir
BILL it is manifest they regarded the errcrs in he
account, if say, as very few aad small in smoant.
They there complain Of charges in WarEaEs ana
nghterage and that they had not credit for $3.50 &C.
received the sale OF hides Il turns out that he
hides had not been sold the time The account wa5
rendered; and complainasts have credit Cor thi6
sum in the decree; and charges for Wharfags, 20
far as can perceive, are contained 10 the account
But Independent Of ali these things eomplaiaants
call upon defendant 10 account fully, and mitss
witness of him, BY putting ihtsFTogstOsies a. 70 *
the matters 10 dispute between them He does aar
sWer and acooun fully aud satisfactorily, showing
the entire dealings between him and com3lninanks
and when aud 70 whom be pad The fright and
charges Of which they complain. Fksss consist.
N inly in sums paid By bin to he ships on board
Of which the wheat was transported 70 NsH York.
This answer must stand, unless overturned By ssf-
dence. But in this case this is not done The Esn-
eral evidence taken By eomplaiRAnts showing he
customary freights and charges On the Wheat froa
Cha tanOogs TO New York cannot be ALLOW q haEs
this effect. The defendant may have been forced,
and in this case We lhiBk be did psy more than t1s
ordinary charges, and from the s0nduct Of con-
Painsuis We have every 70 believe they we're
made in good faith aud he Court dEl right In ~
lowing them. Decree affirmed. HRIaHH
true copy Attest; c. w. NsLsOH, Clerk