
    Richmond.
    J. A. Deneufville’s adm’r v. Travis's adm’r.
    
    Upon an appeal from a final decree made upon a report of a commissioner, to which there were various exceptions by the appellant, the Appellate Court holds that the Court below erred in not sustaining one of the appellant’s exceptions to the report; and the decree is reversed and the cause remanded for the necessary enquiries to be made in relation to the subject of that exception. Held : The decree concludes all other questions.
    
      Peter R. Deneufville died in 1809, leaving a widow, but without issue. He was a merchant in Williams-burg, having two stores in the place. His brother John A. Deneufville had acted as his clerk for a number of years ; and qualified as administrator upon his estate.
    Some time after the death of Peter R. Deneufville, Mrs. Deneufville brought a suit in the Chancery Court at Williamsburg, against the administrator, for a settlement of his accounts, and a distribution of the estate. She afterwards married Robert B. Travis, and died; and he in 1815, filed an amended bill, in which he sought to set aside a release which had been executed by Mrs. Deneufville to John A. Deneufville, of her interest in one of the stores, and certain debts due to her late husband, on the ground of a fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment.
    The cause was so proceeded in that the accounts were referred to a commissioner, who was directed to disregard the release; and he accordingly stated the account, in which he charged the administrator with the goods and debts which had been covered by the release. The administrator excepted to the report; and after excepting to the items of the account which had been embraced in the release, he excepted on the ground that if the release was set aside, he was entitled to compensation for the time he had acted as clerk for Peter R. Deneufville, the relinquishment of which claim had been one of the considerations for the release; and he also excepted on the ground that interest was converted into principal.
    The cause was removed to the Chancery Court of Richmond, and came on there to be heard, when the Court overruled all the defendant’s exceptions, and made a decree in favour of Mrs. Travis's adm’r against John A. Deneufville's adm’r, for the amount reported due to her by the commissioner. From that decree the administrator obtained an appeal to this Court. The cause came on to be heard here in 1844, when this Court expressed the opinion, “ that the Superior Court of Chancery erred in refusing to the appellant’s intestate any compensation for services rendered by him to Peter R. Deneufville; for as the Court properly disregarded the release relied on by the said intestate, the appellant ought to be allowed a reasonable compensation for such services as may not already have been paid for or recompensed.” The decree was therefore reversed with costs; and the cause was “ remanded to the Superior Court of Chancery for the Richmond circuit, for the necessary enquiries to be made in relation to the services aforesaid; with directions that the accounts shall he stated according to the principles recognized and established in the case of Burwell’s ex’ors v. Anderson's adrrdr, 3 Leigh 348, and to be proceeded in to a final decree according to the principles thus declared.”
    When the cause went back to the Court below, the . , . . . , accounts were again referred to a commissioner, to be reformed and restated in conformity to the principles stated in the decree of this Court. The commissioner accordingly restated the account, and allowed to John A. Deneufville compensation for his services at the rate of 300 dollars a year for ten years, beginning in 1800. In other respects the items of the account are the same as those of the previous report.
    The defendant again excepted to the report. His second exception is to the allowance of 300 dollars a year as compensation for John A. Deneuf mile’s services as clerk ; which it was insisted should have been, from the evidence in the cause, 500 dollars a year. The third exception was for not allowing interest on these sums from the end of each year until 1810, when the administration account commenced. The other exceptions were to charges made against the administrator, which had been made in the former report of the commissioner.
    The cause came on again to be heard in February 1847, when the Court overruled the defendant’s exceptions to the commissioner’s report, and made a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of 2810 dollars 39 cents, with interest on 774 dollars 39 cents, from the 1st of January 1830 until paid, appearing to be due by the report. From this decree the defendant applied to this Court for an appeal, which was allowed.
    
      Stanard, for the appellant.
    
      Harrison, for the appellee.
   Allen, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court is of opinion, that by the former decree of this Court the amount to be allowed to the appellant as a reasonable compensation for the services of his intestate, was the only question left open and undetermined. The Court is further of opinion, that according to the proofs in the cause, 500 dollars a year would have been a reasonable compensation for such services, instead of 300 dollars, allowed by the commissioner in his report. The Court is therefore of opinion, that said Circuit Court erred in overruling the second exception of the appellant to said report: Therefore it is adjudged, ordered and decreed, that said decree in this particular be reversed and annulled, with costs to the appellant; and that in all other respects, the same be affirmed.

Cause remanded, with instructions to recommit said report to the commissioner, with directions to restate said account, allowing the sum of 500 dollars per annum, for compensation for services, instead of 300 dollars, but making no other alteration or change in the mode of stating said account.  