204 WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER.

right under the will of their grandfather; and so far, according t
his own shewing, he took possession of this property in the charac-
ter 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 retain rents and profits which he
does not pretend to have received as his own; but 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, conclu-
sive upon this subject. Under that decree he has been called
upon to account for the benefit of those, the extent of whose inte-
rests 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. (h) 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 Virgi-
nia. (i) It has long been the established course of this court, ac-
cording 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. (j)

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 favourable

(k) 2 Fonb, 423—(t) Hammond v. Hammond, post.; Sheppard v. Starke,
Mun. 41.—(j) Davis v. Walsh, 2 H. & J. 344