COALE VS. DUVALL. 171

own hand-writing, which appears from the evidence to have
been well known to the defendant's witness, who was also
present when it was made.

It seems difficult to suppose that a party designing to per-
petrate a fraud upon one who could not read, would have placed
in his hands the ready means of detection and exposure, which
are here exhibited. Surely this willingness of Duvall, thus
manifested that the settlement should undergo revision and ex-
amination, goes far to relieve the transaction from the appear-
ance of suspicion which, I think upon insufficient grounds, the
defendant's counsel has attempted to throw around it.

I do not, therefore, think that the mortgage can be pro-
nounced fraudulent, and therefore void; nor upon collating the
settlement with the receipts produced by the defendant, and in
view likewise of the parol proof, can my mind be brought to
the conclusion, that the defendant is entitled to any additional
credits.

There is, however, in my opinion, one correction to be made
of the settlement of January, 1834, and that is, in regard to the
mode in which the interest was calculated on the debt secured
by the mortgage of the 27th November, 1824.

According to the settlement, the interest was charged upon
the entire debt, and the several payments applied, first, to pay
the interest thus charged, and then to the extinguishment of
the principal. This mode of stating the account was, I think,
wrong, and mustbe corrected. Upon examining the mortgage,
it will be found that the debt was payable by installments, and
that each installment was to be paid at the stipulated period,
with interest on that installment, and not on the entire debt,
and, therefore, the mode adopted when the settlement was made
of charging interest on the whole debt, and applying no part
of the respective payments to the reduction of the principal,
until the interest on the whole was first paid, was against the
terms Of the cunlract, and erroneous.

But as I am fully satisfied, this was the result of inadver-
tence or of ignorance of the operation of the provisions of the
deed, it cannot have the effect of impairing the invalidity of