17 Ala. 32 | Ala. | 1849
This is a cause to which there are many parties, and the facts numerous and complicated; yet there is but one question presented to this court, and that involves the rights of Walker Reynolds and the representatives of Samuel W. Mardis alone. We shall therefore state those facts only which give rise to the question. Walker Reynolds and Samuel W. Mardis entered into an agreement which made them partners, for the purpose of buying and selling Indian lands situated in the Coosa and Tallapoosa Land District. Each partner was to furnish an equal amount of capital, and after the purchases were made and the land sold, the nett profits, after refunding the capital, were to be equally divided between them. Mardis was to make purchases from the Indians, either by himself or through others. Under this agreement, Reynolds advanced a considerable amount of money to Mardis, who purchased a number of tracts of land. Before these lands were sold, Mardis died, and the object of the cross bill filed by Reynolds against his heirs and representatives is to ascertain the lands purchased, to have them sold, and the accounts of the partnership settled.
The only question tb be examined is, from what time shall interest be allowed to Reynolds, and whether die representatives of Mardis shall be charged with the whole interest, or whether
In the case of Lewis v. Bradford, 8 Ala. 633, it is said, that where one receives interest from the money of another, or derives an advantage from its use, he must pay interest to the owner. The same principle is asserted in Kirkman v. Vanlier, 7 Ala. 230; Lamb v. Lamb, 11 Pick. 374; 9 Johns. 71; Slaughton v. Lynch, 1 Johns. Ch. 466. By this rule, which is well settled, the owner of the money is entitled to interest from' the time the money was used or appropriated; then it began to bear interest in favor of the party using it, or to be productive of advantage to him, and from that time should he pay interest to him to whom the money belonged. The contract between the parties was that each partner should advance an equal amount of money in the purchase of land; it did not contemplate that lands should be purchased exclusively with the money of one, in the profits of which the other was to participate. The report of the register, however, shows that Mardis invested in the purchase of the lands seventeen hundred and one dollars eighty and a half cents of the money of Reynolds more than he did of his own. In the lands thus purchased- with this sum he had a joint interest with Reynolds, and so derived advantage from the use of his money. He must therefore pay interest from the time the money was used by him in making the purchase, and we think that the date of the last investment made by Mardis on account of himself and Reynolds is the correct point of time from which the representatives of Mardis should be charged with interest. The chancellor therefore erred in directing interest to be computed from the date of the register’s report in 1S44. But it is very clear that the representatives of Mardis should not be charged with the whole interest; the lands purchased with the money were the joint property of Mardis and Reynolds, and as partnership property have been sold. Both Reynolds and Mardis have participated in the profits, and both, therefore, should be charged with interest. It is but the common case of a firm using the money of an individual member of it; in such a case the firm is the debtor to the member for both principal and interest, and upon a settlement, each member of the firm must bear his proportion of the interest as well as of
The decree, therefore, must be reversed so far as relates to this item, but it is in all other respects affirmed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.-