Donelson's Adm'rs v. Posey, et al. to be valid, there will still remain a surplus to be appropriated to the payment of complainant's demands, after satisfying the demands of the respective cestuis que trust. The objection for multifariousness, so common in modern practice, is not favored in courts of equity. These courts are desirous of preventing multiplicity of suits, by settling at one suit, what at law might require many actions to adjust. Their forms of proceeding are flexible. They bring all parties interested in the subject matter before them, that their rights may be protected, and the whole matter in controversy adjusted by one decree, adapted to the particular exigencies of the case. This desire, however, to avoid litigation, and prevent multiplicity of suits, is never carried so far as to burthen defendants with cost accruing in respect to uniting in one bill several matters wholly distinct, against one defendant, or several distinct matters against several defendants. Besides the accumulation of costs, such a practice would introduce great delay and confusion, and greatly impede the administration of justice. 1 Story's Eq. Pl. 225. Is the case at bar liable to this objection? "A bill," says Judge Story, "is not to be treated as multifarious because it joins two good causes of complaint, growing out of the same transaction, where all the defendants are interested in the same claim of right, and where the relief asked for in relation to each is of the same general character." So also, where the defendants have one common interest touching the matter of the bill, although they claim under distinct titles, and have independent interests. Ib. 233. It is the practice for several judgment creditors to unite in one bill against their common debtor and his grantees, to remove impediments created by fraudulent sales made by the debtor to such grantees, although they take by separate conveyances, and no joint fraud in any one transaction is charged against them all. Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 Johns. Chan. Rep. 139; Fellows v. Fellows, 4 Cow. 682; Brown & Dimmock, et al. v. Bates, 10 Ala. R. 433. In Delafield v. Anderson, 7 Smedes & Mar. Rep. 630, a bill was filed to set aside several sales made under the same execution to different defendants, upon the ground of inadequacy of price, and a want of such interest as could be sold-held, upon demurrer, the bill was not multifarious. See also Donelson's Adm'rs v. Posey, et al. Wright v. Shelton, et al. 1 S. & M. Ch. Rep. 399; Martin, Pleasants & Co. v. Glascock, et al. Ib. 17. In Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige's Rep. 160, it is said by Walworth, chancellor, a bill is not multifarious because two good causes of complaint arising out of the same transaction, are joined in one suit, in which all the defendants are interested in the same claim of right. This court has made several decisions upon the subject of multifariousness in a bill. In the case of Kennedy's Heirs and Executors v. Kennedy's Heirs, 2 Ala. Rep. 571, it is said, "a case against one defendant may be so entire as to be incapable of being prosecuted in several suits; and some other defendant may be a necessary party to some portion only of the case stated." In the latter case, multifariousness would not be an available objection. See also 3 Milne & Craig's Rep. 85. It is further added, the courts find it impracticable to lay down any inflexible rule upon this subject, but discourage the objection when it would defeat, rather than advance the ends of justice. See also Chapman v. Chunn, 5 Ala. Rep. 397. In Mecham v. Williams, et al. 9 Ala. Rep. 842, it is held, that a bill is multifarious when there is no act charged in which all the defendants have participated, in committing a wrong upon the equitable estate of the complainants, and where it is shown they do not derive a title, or claim through a common source, affected with the complainants' equities. See also Coleman v. Broughton, 9 Ala. 351; Mariott & Hardesty v. Givens, 8 Ib. 694. Applying the principles above ascertained to the case before us, we think the bill cannot be regarded as multifarious. The interest of the two trustees, Pope and Posey, is too closely united and blended to authorize the conclusion, that they have not a joint concern in defeating complainant's equities. Indeed, in one aspect of the bill, they are indispensable parties. The complainant alledges that if both their deeds be valid, there are effects enough conveyed to pay up the debts secured by them without collecting the accounts sued upon, out of her estate, and inasmuch as the deed to Posey embraces all the property conveyed by Pearson to Pope, and as both deeds provide for the security of the same demand to Coffee's administrators, it is evident, though Donelson's Adm'rs v. Posey, et al. claiming under different deeds, they are trustees of the same property, and have a common interest in defeating the claims set up by the bill. But if the property conveyed should not be sufficient to pay the debts, and both the trust deeds should stand, still, if complainant's equities are superior to those created by the deeds, the joint interest of the respective trustees will be affected. Each trustee is interested in seeing that the fund in the hands of the other is not diminished. Posey, because he takes by his deed what is not required to pay the debts in the deed to Pope, and the creditors in Pope's deed, if the funds fall short of paying them, may turn the administrators of Coffee, who have two securities, over to the assets in the hands of Posey, if they be sufficient, and thus increase their dividend. But aside from this view, the bill alledging the right of equitable set off against the administrator of Pearson, to the extent of the demands claimed by him, it would be oppressive, and subserve no good end, to drive the complainant to as many suits as there are persons to whom the administrator intends making partition of the funds. Complainant's equity is against the administrator, and the opposing equities of the trustees, are in the nature of incumbrances set up to defeat the relief sought. The whole matter may well be adjusted in one suit. Neither is the bill repugnant as contended in the argument, but we must regard it as framed with a double aspect, so that if the courts should decide against complainant with respect to the trust deeds, she may be relieved allowing them to be valid. Strange, et al. v. Watson, 11 Ala. Rep. 325. 2. Coming then to the main question involved in this case, we will consider whether, from the bill, answers and proof, the complainant shows she is entitled to any relief, and if so, to what extent. It is conceded that complainant's intestate made an account with the firm of P. F. Pearson & Co., of which he was then a member, in the years 1834-5, to the amount of $3,056 46. That he also made an account with the firm of Pearson & Coffee, during the years '35-6-7, to the amount of $2,839 97. That after the dissolution of the firm of Donelson's Adm'rs v. Posey, et al. Pearson & Coffee, he made an account with Pearson individually, in the years '37 and 8, to the amount of $1,706 42, of which account, $1,209 22 was created in 1838. The deed by Pearson to Pope, dated 17th October, 1838, conveys to the latter "all his book accounts, and books, notes, and demands, then in the hands of Pearson, and which were made since the first of January, 1838; also, his stock of goods, wares and merchandize then on hand, together with every thing appertaining thereto," &c. So that it is contended, this deed vested in Pope the equitable right to $1,209 22, of the account made in 1838, by Donelson with Pearson. The deed to the defendant, Posey, bears date the 20th October, '38, and without noticing the previous conveyance to Pope, Pearson transfers to Posey all his accounts and goods on hand, and various lots of land, &c., and other personal property. Under this deed Posey claims to hold for the purposes of his trust, the accounts made by Donelson prior to the year 1838, and actions are commenced in the name of Pettus, the administrator of Pearson, to recover upon said accounts, for the use of the respective trustees. The demands which complainant sets up, and which she insists are of an equitable character, and should be preferred to the equity of the trustees are-First, demands against the firm of P. F. Pearson & Co., viz: $1,000, balance of $5,000 capital advanced--$4,750, share of profits on merchandize-$3,082 33, profits on partnership cotton speculation, realized by the firm; making the total sum due from Pearson to the complainant's intestate, at the dissolution of the firm, (1st November, 1835,) $8,832 36. To this sum complainant insists should be added the amount collected from her estate by Messrs. Montelius & Fuller, on a note assigned them by Joshua C. Oliver, dated 23d September, 1836, and which, with the interest and cost paid, amounted to $1,198 45. Also, a debt paid Weakly, and a debt paid Benjamin Harris, both which debts it is alledged are the debts of Pearson & Coffee, and for which notes were given in the name of P. F. Pearson & Co. Before considering the proof as applicable to these several claims, it is proper to remark, that the defendants have no personal knowledge of the state of accounts between the Donelson's Adm'rs v. Posey, et al. parties, and their answers averring their want of information and casting upon the complainant the burthen of proof, do not require the same amount of testimony to sustain the allegations of the bill. In such case, this court has held one witness is sufficient to establish the truth of such charges. See Gibbs & Labuzan v. Frost & Dickerson, 4 Ala. Rep. 720. Respecting the demands in favor of Donelson, we think the most of them very satisfactorily proven. All the members who composed the respective firms of P. F. Pearson & Co., and Pearson & Coffee have died. We are then compelled to resort to the best evidence which can be had under the circumstances, and it is natural to conclude that the books of the firm, and the persons engaged as the agents and clerks of the partners, would furnish the most reliable source for satisfactory evidence of their transactions. The witnesses Neander H. Rice, and W. Bassett, were the clerks ; the former clerked for Pearson in 1832, and from thence continuously till 1836; the latter was clerk in 1834-5. These witnesses, in giving their depositions, had access to the books of P. F. Pearson & Co., and Pearson & Coffee. Their statements substantially agree, and in respect to the profits of the concern, they are corroborated by the proof of several of the merchants of Florence, where the business was carried on. They substantially state, that the business of P. F. P. & Co. commenced in July, '33, and ended November, '35. That Donelson put into the concern, in cash, $5,000, and shortly after the dissolution withdrew $4,000, thus leaving $1,000 balance of the said advance due him. That reasonable profits of the concern, as shown by the sales, and as coming within their knowledge, amounted to $9,500, the sales being $69,830 67. Thus leaving Donelson's share of profits $4,750. They further show, that upon the dissolution of the firm of P. F. P. & Co., and the formation of the new firm of Pearson & Coffee, the stock of goods belonging to the first firm were invoiced and debited to the firm of P. & Coffee at the sum of $12,175. That this debit, with $1,752 57, which accrued in favor of P. F. P. & Co. on account of other transactions, were credited with $6,143 72 paid by |