If there are several classes of debts, they should be put into separate schedules; and, if numerous, it is convenient to arrange the creditors in each schedule alphabetically.

If the creditor's charge is allowed, and the fund out of which he is to be paid is sufficient, he need concern himself no further than to see that it is included in the schedule to the report. If the Master disallow the charge altogether, or in part, the creditor may leave objections to the Master's report, but must obtain an order, as of course, for liberty to except, and then may file exceptions. If he happens to be a party as well as a creditor, he may except without obtaining an order for liberty to do so.

If the fund is insufficient to pay all the creditors in full, it will depend upon that fund and upon each particular creditor's debt, whether his debt will be paid in full, or be subject to abatement, or whether he will lose it altogether; into which subject we have already inquired.

318

CHAPTER XXX.

INTEREST.

IN treating on debts and legacies, the subject of interest has been anticipated. It will be necessary, however, to add a few remarks to those incidentally brought to the attention of the reader; first as to compound interest. In Morgan v. Mather, 2 Ves. 15, the Commissioners said that compound interest might be allowed in the case of a contract for it, either expressed, or to be inferred from the nature of the dealings between the parties, as, if it is according to the course of their trade. But it must not be an antecedent contract, for although accounts might be settled half-yearly, and interest be allowed against the whole of the balance, except as to real security, yet compound interest could not be taken under an antecedent contract. Beavan, Exparte, 9 Ves. 223.

In taking accounts before the Master, unless the decree directs the Master to make annual, or other periodical rests, compound interest is only computed on debts due on mortgage; thus, supposing the Master, by his report, finds that there is 1000l. due for principal, and 1007. for interest on a mortgage security, and 150l. for costs, and it is referred back to him to compute subsequent interest, the same is computed, not only on the principal sum of 10007. but also on the sums of 1007. for interest, and 150l. for costs; but if it is referred back to him, to compute sub

sequent interest on a bond, or other specialty debt, or on a legacy, the same is only computed on the principal money, and not on the interest; thus suppose the Master had found, by his first report, 1000l. due for principal, and 100%. for interest on bond, on his further report he would only calculate interest on the 1000l. and not on the 1007. See Perkins v. Baynton, 1 Bro. C. C. 573.

The reason of the distinction is, that in the case of a mortgage, the Court orders payment on a given day, and if the time is extended, it is a favour to the mortgagor, and is only granted upon his paying subsequent interest on the whole of the sum, which he ought to have paid on the day fixed by the Court. See Creuse v. Hunter, 2 Ves. 157.

Although after the Master has made his report certifying what is due to the mortgagee for principal, interest, and costs, the whole amount carries subsequent interest, yet in taking the account in the Master's office, prior to the first report, the interest on the mortgage cannot be converted into principal, to carry interest, unless the mortgagor, by a further mortgage, or a letter or writing under his hand agrees to make it principal. In Brown v. Barkham, 1 P. W. 652, it was held, that where the mortgagor signed an account, whereby so much was admitted to be due for interest, that that sum would not carry interest, unless the mortgagor, by a letter or writing under his hand, agreed to make it principal. This is a dictum by Lord Parker: but see Boddam v. Riley, 2 Bro. C. C. 2; Macarthy v. Llandaff, 1 Ba. & Be. 373; Clancarty v. Latouche, ib. 420, 1 Vez. 496, 2 Ves. 471.

Subsequent interest is only computed upon those sums upon which interest has been computed up to the date of the report, and not upon debts not carrying interest.

Creuse v. Hunter, 2 Ves. 166. Lord Mansfield, speaking of the doctrine of courts of equity, as to interest, says: "The cases in which the Court has, on further directions, given interest on demands not carrying interest in their nature are, either cases in which interest has not been given by the decree, because the circumstances which made it proper could not appear before the report; or where subsequent interest is given, in respect of gross and wilful misconduct, subsequent to a decree or order for payment, by delaying the execution of it. But the single circumstance that the demand is liquidated by the report, or any delay that might have been prevented by the diligence of the party claiming interest, or which is the necessary consequence of the nature of the jurisdiction, is not considered a sufficient ground to charge the other party with interest." Creuse v. Hunter. 2 Ves. 169 (n).

Subsequent interest is only computed upon principal sums carrying interest, and not upon the amount found due by the Master's report, for principal and interest, except in the case of a mortgage, where subsequent interest is computed on the whole sum found due for principal, interest, and costs. If the Master has found 1000l. due on bond, and 100%. for interest, subsequent interest is only computed on the principal sum of 10007. So if the report find a party entitled to a legacy of 10007. and 2007. for interest, subsequent interest is only computed on the 1000. If the Master's report finds 5001. due for arrears of an annuity, no subsequent interest can be computed on such sum. So, where the interest of 10007. or other sum is given to A. for life, and the Master finds 5001. for interest, that sum does not carry subsequent interest.

Interest is not payable on a sum recovered on a lost

policy, from a life insurance company. Bushman v. Morgan, 5 Sim. 635. Neither is interest allowed on arrears of past maintenance, nor on arrears of a jointure. Mellish v. Mellish, 14 Ves. 516.

In directing an account, the Court sometimes orders the Master to make periodical rests, the effect of which is, at every rest, to convert the interest into principal, and to compute subsequent interest upon such interest, as well as upon the principal money. Periodical rests are chiefly directed in taking an account against a trustee, or executor improperly dealing with the trust estate, against a mortgagee in possession, or sometimes as between vendor and purchaser.

The Master has no power to make rests, unless directed by the decree. In Webber v. Hunt, 1 Madd. 13, this point was decided in respect of an account against a mortgagee, and the principle of the decision is applicable to all

cases.

When, at the time the mortgagee enters into possession, there is an arrear of interest due to him, the Court will not order the Master to make rests. Davis v. May, Coop. 238, Idem 19 Ves. 384 (a).

In Donovan v. Tucker, 1 Jac. 165, a purchase was set aside for fraud, and the purchaser was decreed to pay an occupation rent, receiving back his purchase money with interest; and there being a considerable excess of rent, above the interest, annual rests were directed to be made in the accounts, until the excess of the rents should liquidate the principal.

In Robinson v. Cummings, 2 Atk. 410, the Court directed annual rests in an account of the rents of the real estate, but not of the personal: and in Raphael v. Boehm, 13 Ves. 407, half-yearly rests were ordered. For