
    John Attaway, ads. John S. James, Admr. of Wm. Dendy.
    
    
      One I. A. the brother of defendant, placed in his hand funds for settling his (I. A’s) debts on the best terms he could: defendant called onplaintiff, to whom I. A. owed ‡ 65, and representing the debt as doubtful, obtained a discharge on paying ‡ 33: Held no ground to charge defendant, who only acted as agent, with the balance of the debt.
    
    Isaac Attaway, the brother of the defendant, was indebted to Wm. Dendv, the plaintiff’s intestate, in the sum of $ 65 6£ by book account. After contracting the account, he removed to the state of Alabama, where he resided one or two years. Having returned to this state, he deposited some money in the hands of his brother, the defendant, for the purpose of settling his debts, on the best terms he could. The defendant called on the plaintiff and representing the debt as being doubtful, succeeded in getting xt settled, and obtained a discharge for the sum of # 33.
    
      The -plaintiff brought this action against him, for fraudu'* lently representing the debt as doubtful, when he in fact had in his hands at the time, funds of Isaac Attaway sufficient to pay the whole demand. Defendant proved by Isaac Attaway himself, w!io had remained in this county ever since, that defendant acted merely as his agent; that he kept no part of the money himself, but returned to him (Isaac Attaway) all that remained after discharging his debts, within a few days after he settled with plaintiff. The presiding judge gave a decree for the plaintiff for $32, with interest from--'February, 1824, the time of the settlement.
    The defendant moved the constitutional court to reverse this decree, on the following grounds:
    1st. Because under the circumstances, the defendant John Attaway, acting merely as the agent of his brother, is not liable
    2nd. Because the defendant, if liable for the balance of principal, ought not to be charged with interest.
   The opinion of the Court ivas delivered by

Mr. Justice Richardson.

Thoughout the transaction, the defendant acted as the agent of Jsaac Attaway, in order to settle his debts in the best way he could; and although the plaintiff may, on account of the misrepresentation made by the agent, if any there was, still recover the balance of his debt against Jsaac Attaway, yet there-is no sufficient ground for substituting-the agent for theprincipai and making him the debtor, when he has received nothing from either party; but simply executed his commission in paying as he had been directed. The motion is therefore granted.

Colcock, JYott, Huger and Johnson, Justices, concurred.  