Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-05-04

time OF the trade of the 2lst Nav, 1885, we canno,
@ ~ WIN the counsel for the complainant that the
| e5VVV note was forgotten or omitted by mis-.
-. nS sIins tne elrcumstantial proof thus pre-
vn osna OF defendants, and which lose moth
ing Dy tne lapse of time preuouderate over the
recollection OF one credible witness afte- the loa
OF seventeen years-Warren's testimony havin0
been taken IN 1852
But in this case the burden of proof is on the
complainant TO change the estate Of Han-1, p;1y-
by proving the payment. This he must 40 MOI r,
ly (where there is conflict in the Eroof \ nv
having mere preponderance in his favor. bnt> ~
preponderance must be such as to satisfy the mind
Il lies with him to salty the mind and consciancs
of the Court that he Is entitled to the mouey befo
any decree can be pronounced againt the defendan.
for the same. Greenleaf 4, section 2.
The Only remaining exceptions much pressed bv
counsel are the rs ninth and eighteenth exceptions
on behalf Of defendants. The first exception is,
because the Master has only charged complainant
with the proceeds of 1871 bales cotton, when he
should be charged with the proceeds not less than
20l9 bales.
We think from the proof that the defendants have
no cause for exception upon this ground. 1t Is not
clear, from the proof that 20l9 bales were raised
on the Mississippi farm in the thirteen years.
But complainant has satisfactorily accounted for
as much cotton as Is actually shown to be the decit
and besides, valves all his exceptions, mainly in
reference to expenses in carrying the Mississippi
farm, several Of which it would be difficult for US
70 ulsallOW upon The proof, on condition that the
first exception of defendants is not sustained.
The credits, in our estimation, allowed the com
painant for expenses in carrying the Mississippi
farm are exceedingly small and which is reasonably
accounted for by supposing that some cotton was
used in defraylng expenses, which has not been
charged TO complainant But that there was cotton
not fully accounted for by the proof does not sufi
ciently appear TO be made the subject Of charge
in the sccount. ,g-4.8 1853 1--- si. -
The ninth exception is. sbecause the Clerk and
Master allows Moses Ridley a credit of Sl4l54 Is
paid by n d J. Dick Co. to Lee, Maddox & Co. in
March, 1886, when said debt was the partnership
debt of Ridley & Anthony and which Henry Ridley
was not, by the contract, bound to pay"
There seems to US to be an inconsistency in the
exception. If it was partnership debt of Ridley &
Anthony, the exception states it was then Ridley
& Anthony were Jointly and severally bound to
pay it.
The case made by the exception is not charge Of
negligence for net making Anthony pay hls part
But by the proof it is a meritorious credit and
should be allowed the complainant.
1t is not denied that Ridley d Anthony owed this
money and the payment of it by Moses Ridley is
not controyerted but is said that the contract of
the 2lst May, 1885. only bound H. Ridley to pay
1856 %, which is true, but it bound him to pay
that much for Anthony the balance was doubtless
II. Ridley's part Of the whole debt upon settlement
and therefore not mentioned in the writing.
Exceptions l3, IA, Is and l6, on behalf of defen-
dants, are bad. because they do not point out any
particular error in the report, but assume that
'money's have been twice credited and '-that the
account is in many particulars erroneous and that
the aggregate result Of debts and credits is errone
GUS
These exceptions are too general. Exceptions
partake of the nature of special demurrers and if
report is erroneous the party excepting must put
his finger on the error. Wilkes and wife VS.. Rog-
ers and others 6. John. r. $50.
Much labor has been bestowed on the 18th exeep-
ton by counsel to show that Moses Ridley had large
sums Of money in his hands at different times while
there were debts outstanding against the estate
drawing interest and which he afterwards paid.
getting credit here for the interest which thus
accrued while he had the money to pay them.
No specific case is pointed out and shown, and
the exception makes no such case. The exception
is because the Clerk allows interest the balance
from lS4S, when no interest should be allowed"
We think the defendents have no cause of COM
plant about interests, when the Clerk has only
allowed the complainant interest from 1S48 on
balances due him, most of which is money paid
by him between 1885 ard 1888, at different periods.
We cannot believe that defendants are injured by
this mode of computing interest when the record
shows large Balance due complainant most or
all of which was due him before lS4S.
The other exceptions have been examined, but
upon the whole see no reason TO change
the decree of the Chancellor and affirm it in all
things. CoLYAR. Special Judge.
Correct copy: ]. p. CLARK, Clerk.