WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER,—2 BLAND. 191

according to his own shewing, lie took possession of this pro-
perty in the character of a trustee; and as such he undertook,
at his peril, with the title deeds of his children before him, to claim
and hold, on their behalf, a much larger interest than that which
belonged to them. He had thus confessedly assumed no higher
character than that of trustee for those who had the right; and
now, that it clearly appears, and has been determined by a decree
of this Court, that the whole right was not in his children, he
certainly cannot be allowed to assume a new character, and to re
tain rents and profits which he does not pretend to have received
as his own; bat for the use of others, who, it has been determined,
have no right to them, and who cannot be allowed to receive them,
or be held accountable for them. The decree of the 7th of April
1828, is. however, conclusive upon this subject. Under that
decree he has been called upon to account for the benefit of those,
the extent of whose interests have been determined by it.

It has been contended on behalf of John Diffenderffer, that he is
not chargeable with interest at all; while on the other hand, com-
pound interest is claimed of him.

Legal interest is the measure of damages which the law allows
in all cases for the detention of money; which the holder is made
to pay where he is in any default in not paying, or applying the
money in his hands as he was bound to do. 2 Fonb. 423. The
general rule is, however, that interest is not given upon- interest;
and therefore, on a bill for an account, for the recovery of a legacy,
or the like, where interest is allowed, it is computed by the auditor
from the time the money became due up to the time of stating the
account, with interest on the principal sum only from that time
until paid. By which mode of computation and decree compound
interest is excluded; and this appears to be the rule in Virginia.
Hammond v. Hammond, post; Sheppard v. Starke, 3 Mun. 41. It has
long been the established course of this Court, according to the
rule laid down by the Court of Appeals, in taking an account of
rents and profits to charge the party with interest thereon from
the respective times they were received. Davis v. Walsh, 2 H.
& J. 344.

In this case, one of the accounts of the rents and profits has
been stated with annual rests, at the instances of the plaintiffs:
and the statement has not been objected to. It is more favorable
* to the defendant John Diffenderffer than to charge him
with interest, according to the rule of the Court, from the 205
time each sum was received; and therefore, the computation of in
terest from the rests will in this case be approved.

But it is objected, that interest should not be charged on the
interest, computed as a portion of the balances at each of those
rests.