
    George v. Richardson.
    April, 1821.
    Chancery Practice — Setting Aside Contract — Inadequacy of Consideration. — A contract will be set aside in equity for inadequacy of consideration, where there is inequality in the condition of the parties.
    Appellate Practice — Reversal of Decree — Costs.—On reversing a decree because injurious to the ap-pellee, costs will be allowed if he substantially prevail.
    Lucy Richardson set forth in her bill, filed in the Chancery court of Richmond, that on the 5th July *1801, she obtained a decree in the county court of Nottoway, against John Patterson, administrator of one Anderson, for 501. with interest from February 1st J801; and for 221., with interest from 5th July 1801. That in 1812, she gave to Peter Bland, an order for the money, who had received it, and had never paid it over; he is a defendant to the bill. Living at that time in the family of Charles D. George, who was a witness to the order to Bland; he [George] fraudulently obtained from her an assignment of the debt; promising her $150 for her interest; she executed the assignment, without understanding its import, [being wholly illiterate]. George assigned this paper to James Rice; both are made defendants, and required to answer.
    George admits in his answer, that he was to give but $150 for the claim; he says, he had paid about $50, inconsumable commodities, meal &c.
    Bland admits the allegations of the bill as to him; that he had received the money, and would have accounted, but for the conflict of the claims; and was at all times ready &c.
    Rice says, he was accidentally called by George, to witness the assignment to him by the plaintiff; that it was read to her; and she was satisfied with it; that George then proposed to sell it to him; and that he bought it for 801., for which he gave his bond.
    On general replications to the answers, without depositions, the Chancellor decreed, that Bland should pay over to the plaintiff the 501. with interest from 1st January 1806; and the 221., with interest from 5th July 1801; deducting a small sum due Bland by agreement. George and Rice appealed.
    May, for the appellant,
    cited Whitehorn v. Hines,() to shew, that a subsequent purchaser, was not affected by the fraud of a prior holder: and therefore Rice’s claim *was good, because he was not privy to George’s contract.
    Spooner, contra;
    relied on the gross inadequacy of price as a strong badge of' fraud, () That the appellee was moreover wholly illiterate; a negro, and living in the family of George, was liable to imposition,, and oppression.
    The assignee cannot have a better claim,, than he had, from whom he derives, ()
    The Chancellor has made a mistake of five-years in the interest, to the appellee’s-prejudice.
    
      
      Costs. — See monographic note on “Costs” appended to Jones v. Tatum, 19 Gratt. 720.
    
    
      
      (a) 1 Mnnf. 557.
    
    
      
      (b) Sugd. Vend. 192-5.
    
    
      
      (c) Norton v. Rose, 2 Wash. 233.
    
   ROANE, Judge.

There is no error in the decree to the prejudice of the appellants;, but it is erroneous, as it respects the ap-pellee, in allowing interest on the 501. from January 1806, instead of the 1st February 1801. The decree is therefore reversed, as to this, and affirmed for the residue. Costs-are allowed the appellee, as the party substantially prevailing.  